Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodgers, 442 P.2d 840.

48 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Merely “leav[ing] the scene” of a crime is insufficient to support a flight instruction; instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the defendant “voluntarily withdrew himself ‘in order to avoid arrest or detention.’” -57 (1975) ().
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Appellant’s , , *249 is not persuasive.
State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
*367 While merely leaving the scene does not constitute flight in Arizona, , , , leaving the area and attempting concealment does, , , , rev’d on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 552 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
State v. Smith 552 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
in support of this contention : “Flight, in criminal law, is defined as ‘the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings.” 103 Ariz. at 395 , 442 P.2d at 842 .
State v. Shields 546 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Shields 546 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
filed February 11, 1976.
State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
State v. Salazar 541 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
State v. Salazar 541 P.2d 1157 Ariz. 1975
The focus of inquiry in regard to appellant’s motivation as to this issue is whether appellant voluntarily withdrew himself “in order to avoid arrest or detention * * at 395 , at 842 (1968).
State v. Sorrell 506 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1973
State v. Sorrell 506 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1973
in support of his position, but we find no way to apply that case here.
State v. Steed 506 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1973
State v. Steed 506 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1973
for the proposition that leaving the scene of a crime is not in itself sufficient basis for giving such an instruction.
State v. Steed 501 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Steed 501 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See e. g., , , State v. Milton, 15 Ariz.App.
State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Bailey 489 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1971
State v. Bailey 489 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1971
State v. Milton 489 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
It should be considered and weighed by you in connection with all the other evidence.” , , reversed on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Castro 471 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1970
State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Roderick, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Castro 471 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1970
reversed on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Roderick 448 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Randall 443 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Randall 443 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Whether or not evidence of flight shows a consciousness of guilt, and the significance to be attached to such a circumstance, are matters for your determination.” , vacating State v. Rodgers, 7 Ariz.App.