Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Rain v. State, 137 P. 550.
- State v. Warren 548 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
Distinguished
State v. Warren
548 P.2d 1183
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Furthermore, , 137 P. 550 (1913), while distinguishable from the instant case, supports our conclusion that the officer’s observations of appellant’s ingress and egress from the residence, coupled with the presence of appellant at the time of discovery of the goods, warranted the jury in finding that appellant possessed the goods
- State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Harris
481 P.2d 504
Ariz. 1971
294 P. 617 (1930); , 137 P. 550 (1913).
- State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Fredrico 449 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Weis 375 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1962
-
State v. Weis
375 P.2d 735
Ariz. 1962
This Court, , , said: *261 “In dealing with a , 137 P. 550, 553 , we laid down the following governing principle of law, viz: “ ‘The appellant complains that the court should have granted his motion, and should have instructed the jury to acquit when the state rested its case in chief, for the reason the state had failed, when it rested its case in chief, to prod
- State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Wilson 325 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1958
-
State v. Wilson
325 P.2d 416
Ariz. 1958
137 P. 550 ; Cf. United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 , 75 S.Ct.
- State v. Jordan 320 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1958
-
State v. Jordan
320 P.2d 446
Ariz. 1958
136 P. 631 , it was pointed out that appellant must show that he has been prejudiced by the alleged misconduct of a juror or the jury before he can predicate an appeal on the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial on such a ground, , 137 P. 550 .
- State v. Howe 211 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1949
-
State v. Howe
211 P.2d 467
Ariz. 1949
A. In Phoenix.” In dealing with a , 137 P. 550, 553 , we laid down the following governing principle of law, viz: “The appellant complains that the court should have granted his motion, and should have instructed the jury to acquit when the state rested its case in chief, for the reason the state had failed, when it rested its case in chief, to produc
- Whitson v. State 181 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1947
-
Whitson v. State
181 P.2d 822
Ariz. 1947
928 ; , 136 P. 631 ; , 137 P. 550 ; Ewers’ Adm’r v. National Imp.
- Powell v. Langford 119 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1941
- Powell v. Langford 119 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1941
- Hash v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1936
- Hash v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1936
- Moreno v. Russell 53 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1936
- Moreno v. Russell 53 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1936
- Washington v. State of Arizona 52 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1935
- Washington v. State of Arizona 52 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1935
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Lawrence v. State 240 P. 863 Ariz. 1925
- Lawrence v. State 240 P. 863 Ariz. 1925
- Kingsbury v. State 232 P. 887 Ariz. 1925
-
Kingsbury v. State
232 P. 887
Ariz. 1925
321 ), *303 nor, need any particular testimony of the accomplice be corroborated ( , 137 Pac.