Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McFall, 439 P.2d 805.

60 citing documents.

State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.”).
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Denning 747 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Denning 747 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
(defendant led to believe he would not be prosecuted if he agreed to give police information concerning a crime); , (drug-addicted defendant led to believe he would be given drugs if he cooperated).
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court 702 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1985
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court 702 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1985
State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
We have said that a confession, to be voluntary, cannot have been obtained by “any direct or implied promises, however slight,” , quoting Malloy v. *149 Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Burr 615 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1980
State v. Burr 615 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1980
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
State v. Torres 588 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Torres 588 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Shepherd, supra; State v. Wells, 17 Wash.
State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
see State v. Jones, *478 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
While forging an instrument is the crime of falsely and with fraudulent intent, making or altering a writing, , , the uttering of a forged instrument is the passing or publishing of a false, altered or counterfeited paper or document.
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Notwithstanding the foregoing, defendant, , and other authorities, urges that when a defendant reasonably believes that a promise has been made to him, even though no such promise in fact has been made, and this belief induced his statement, the statement cannot be con *53 sidered voluntary.
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Shepherd 555 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In support of this argument, , (which held “a confession to be free and voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States must not have been obtained by ‘any direct or implied promise, however slight .
State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Kroupa 492 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Kroupa 492 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
cited by the defendant as authority for the invalidity of his confession, is not in point.
Wiseman v. Arizona Highway Department Ex Rel. Campbell 464 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wiseman v. Arizona Highway Department Ex Rel. Campbell 464 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970