Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Moon v. State, 198 P. 288.

28 citing documents.

State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
1965) (“It is well established in our state that a crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone, and that fingerprints are a means of positive 7 STATE v. HILL Decision of the Court identification by which a defendant may be linked with the commission of the offense.”) ().
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Favela 323 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Favela 323 P.3d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-24, 198 P. 288, 290 (1921).
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
198 P. 288, 290 (1921) (“[T]he weight and value of [fingerprint] testimony [is] always .
State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
olor of the paint on the victim’s bike); , (tracker properly testified that appellant’s shoes matched tracks left in dirt at crime scene); , (ballistic expert properly testified that fatal shots were fired from rifle that appellant had borrowed day before shooting); , 198 P. 288, 290 (1921) (fingerprint experts properly testified that fingerprint lifted at crime scene came from appellant); , (hair and fiber examiner properly testified that hairs found in victim’s apartment and on appellant’s clo
State v. Boles 905 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Boles 905 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
State v. Burton 697 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1985
198 P. 288 (1921), in support of this proposition.
State v. Burkheart 478 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1970
State v. Burkheart 478 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1970
198 P. 288 , for the proposition that in-court experiments are permissible.
State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
Photographs of the fingerprints of an accused taken while he was in custody have long been admissible in evidence in this state, , 198 P. 288 , 16 A.L.R.
State v. Brady 407 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Brady 407 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
229 P. 103 (1924); , 198 P. 288 , 16 A.L.R.
State v. Hood 213 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1950
State v. Hood 213 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1950
This question has been determined by this court contrary to defendant’s , , , 198 P. 288 , 16 A.L.R.
Riley v. State of Arizona 73 P.2d 96 Ariz. 1937
Riley v. State of Arizona 73 P.2d 96 Ariz. 1937
State of Arizona v. Duguid 72 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1937
State of Arizona v. Duguid 72 P.2d 435 Ariz. 1937
Garcia v. State 229 P. 103 Ariz. 1924
Garcia v. State 229 P. 103 Ariz. 1924
16 A. L. R. 362, 198 Pac.