Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Romo, 185 P.2d 757.

43 citing documents.

State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
stated in dicta that the corpus delicti must be established beyond any question
Carrizoza v. Zahn 515 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Carrizoza v. Zahn 515 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Gray v. Woods, supra; , , , 276 P. 322 (1929).
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Hinson v. Phoenix Pie Company 416 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
and People v. Skinner, 123 Cal.App.2d 741
State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
“ ‘The rule against admission of statements not voluntarily made applies only to confessions and not to statements against interest.’ , .” , .
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr 391 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1964
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Parr 391 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1964
State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
this Court defined a confession as “an acknowledgment of guilt after commission of an offense leaving nothing to be decided.” This definition, according to the Romo case, does not apply to a mere statement or declaration of independent facts from which guilt may be inferred.
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
1 , 276 P. 322, 324 (1929)
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
“The rule against admission of statements not voluntarily made applies only to confessions and not to statements against interest.” , .
State v. Pulliam 349 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1960
State v. Pulliam 349 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1960
Kermeen v. State, supra; Laub v. State, supra; , 282 P. 930 ; , 256 P. 1053 ; Ramirez v. State, supra; , ; , ; , ; State v. Thorp, supra; State v. Thomas, supra.
State v. Van Bogart 331 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1958
State v. Van Bogart 331 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1958
State v. Hernandez 320 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1958
State v. Hernandez 320 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1958
State v. Butler 307 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1957
State v. Butler 307 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1957
408 , ; , , , , 125 A.L.R.
State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
State v. Hoffman 279 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1955
State v. Lantz 231 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1951
State v. Lantz 231 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1951
this ■ court brought out in full relief the characteristics of a confession and distinguished it from an admission.
State v. Bradley 230 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1951
State v. Bradley 230 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1951
for the rule distinguishing between a confession and an admission against interest.
State v. Johnson 211 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1949
State v. Johnson 211 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1949