Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Singleton, 182 P.2d 920.
- State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Hall
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–30, ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2000) (each of three shots fired—one into the ground and two toward two victims— “constituted a separate act” by the defendant); (“[A]lthough several shots be fired in such quick succession that they constitute, in effect, but one act, still, the result may involve more than one offense” for purposes of double jeopardy); –01, ¶¶ 79–84 (2015) (consecutive sentences for kidnapping and felony murder o
- State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
State v. Stabler
783 P.2d 816
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Holsinger, supra
- State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
State v. Montijo
774 P.2d 1366
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
appears to require that such an instruction be given, if requested
- State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. Axley
646 P.2d 268
Ariz. 1982
“[Ijnstructions must be predicated on some theory of the case which may be found in the evidence, and, when not so predicated, they should not be given, as their tendency would be to mislead the jury.” State v. McIntyre, supra
- State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
-
State v. Holsinger
601 P.2d 1054
Ariz. 1979
If the questions were persistent enough and cleverly enough framed, no amount of denial on the part of a defendant would be able to erase the impression in the *22 mind of the jury that the prosecutor actually had such facts at hand and that probably there was some truth to the insinuations.”
- State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Meador 558 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Meador 558 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1976
- State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
- State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Hill 505 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. Hill
505 P.2d 553
Ariz. 1973
we held: “But when, as here, such questioning is raised and then dropped with no further attempt on the part of the State to prove its point, ...
- State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Stevens 490 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Beard 489 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Gilreath
487 P.2d 385
Ariz. 1971
wherein we held it was reversible error to cross-examine a defendant as to prior bad acts if he was not prepared to substantiate the allegations in the event of a negative answer.
- State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Johnson
479 P.2d 424
Ariz. 1971
(“It has long been settled in this state that a witness cannot be impeached by showing specific acts of misconduct not amounting to a felony conviction.”); , ; , ; , .
- State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
-
State v. Price
477 P.2d 523
Ariz. 1970
278 P.2d *435 432; , ; , ; , .
- State v. Mclntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
- State v. McIntyre 477 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1970
-
State v. McIntyre
477 P.2d 529
Ariz. 1970
at 56 , at 924 (1947); at 154 , 283 P. 711 at 716 (1929).
-
State v. Mclntyre
477 P.2d 529
Ariz. 1970
at 56 , at 924 (1947); at 154 , 283 P. 711 at 716 (1929).
- State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969