DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Singleton, 182 P.2d 920.

127 citing documents.

  • State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    and see Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 45, at 70.
  • State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    Among the Arizona authority establishing this general rule to be the law of this state are: , 181 P. 175 (1919); , , , and
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    The Court said: “In applying this constitutional provision our prior decisions, , , at page 66, , at page 930, have laid down this test: had the error pointed out not been committed is there reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different?
  • State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Martinez 427 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Martinez 427 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Brock 416 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1966
    The instruction on second degree murder must include the element of malice, , , and exclude circumstances of mitigation, justification or excuse.
  • State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    our Supreme Court, was presented with jury verdicts of conviction as to a count of murder and of manslaughter, and of acquittal as to other counts of murder and assault with intent to murder, when all charges arose from the same series of shqtgun blasts.
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    e shall be reversed for technical error in pleading or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.” , the Supreme Court of this State said: “In applying this constitutional provision our prior decisions, , , at page 66, , at page 930, have laid down this test: had the error pointed out not been committed is there reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different?
  • State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Douglas 407 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Douglas 407 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    A , wherein it was stated: “However, both immediately before and immediately after this improper definition the judge properly, clearly, and at length instructed the jury on the elements of the crime of second degree murder including therein the necessary element of malice.
  • State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
    to the effect that a county attorney, in order to impeach a witness, cannot question a witness in regard to prior convictions unless he is prepared to impeach him.
  • State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
  • Distinguished State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , ; , , cert, denied 339 U.S. 973 , 70 S.Ct.
  • State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
    y be examined on whether he has suffered a previous conviction of a felony, , ; Hadley v. State, 25 Ariz 23, 212 P. 458 , it is also equally well settled that a prosecuting officer, in or *15 der to impeach him as a witness, cannot engage in questioning which casts insinuations without being prepared and able to prove the insinuations, , .
  • State v. Johnson 383 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Johnson 383 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. De Marinis 375 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. De Marinis 375 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960