Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crowell v. State, 136 P. 279.

58 citing documents.

State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
425 (1925); , 136 P. 279 (1913).
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
See, , , 136 P. 279 (1913); , Atkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 937 (9th Cir.1962).
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
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
The rule of exclusion quoted above is directed at other offenses “ * * * wholly independent of, and unconnected with, that for which he is on trial * * Statements of similar import can he found in the decisions of our Supreme Court applying the rule: , 136 P. 279, 281 (1913), (“ ‘ * * * evidence of a distinct, substantive offense * * * ’ ”); , 181 P. 175, 177 (1919), (“the evidence concerning the prior assault sheds no light upon the transaction charged in the information * * * ”); , 19
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
State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
136 P. 279 ; , 256 P. 1048 .” Moreover, evidence of other offenses which “complete the story” is admissible as an exception to the general rule.
State v. DeVinney 403 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1965
State v. DeVinney 403 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1965
136 P. 279 ; Lewis v. State, 32 Ariz, 182, 256 P. 1048 .
State v. Francis 371 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1962
State v. Francis 371 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1962
425 (1925); , 136 P. 279 (1913).
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
*299 , 136 P. 279 ; , 256 P. 1048 .
State v. Thomas 229 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1951
State v. Thomas 229 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1951
* * * ” , 136 P. 279 , this court quoted with approval, the rule and the reasons therefor, as stated in Farris v. People, 129 Ill.
State v. Serna 211 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1949
State v. Serna 211 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1949
136 P. 279 , we discuss the general rule, and hold that among these exceptions are: “ ‘(1) Motive, e. g., the commission of one crime to suppress evidence of another crime.’ “ ‘(5) The identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial, e. g., that the defendant charged with murder used stolen
State of Arizona v. Smith 155 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1945
State of Arizona v. Smith 155 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1945
bit P being a statement from John Smith, the son of defendant, who claimed he was with deceased at the time deceased was Hlled; and a *154 statement by defendant written as a part of State’s Exhibit E, or his confession, bnt the same, together with a postscript on the first page of the confession, were introduced in evidence as the State’s Pac.
State of Arizona v. Levice 130 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1942
State of Arizona v. Levice 130 P.2d 53 Ariz. 1942
Douglass v. State 33 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1934
Douglass v. State 33 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1934
Judd v. State 16 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1932
Judd v. State 16 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1932
Crowell v. State, supra [ , 136 Pac.
Comancho v. State 8 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1932
Comancho v. State 8 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1932
Greve v. State 285 P. 274 Ariz. 1930
Greve v. State 285 P. 274 Ariz. 1930
MacIas v. State 283 P. 711 Ariz. 1929
MacIas v. State 283 P. 711 Ariz. 1929
Vigil v. State 262 P. 14 Ariz. 1927
Vigil v. State 262 P. 14 Ariz. 1927
Lewis v. State 256 P. 1048 Ariz. 1927
Lewis v. State 256 P. 1048 Ariz. 1927
Holder v. State 253 P. 629 Ariz. 1927
Holder v. State 253 P. 629 Ariz. 1927
Woodson v. State 247 P. 1103 Ariz. 1926
Woodson v. State 247 P. 1103 Ariz. 1926
Lawrence v. State 240 P. 863 Ariz. 1925
Lawrence v. State 240 P. 863 Ariz. 1925