Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Douglas v. State, 225 P. 335.
-
State v. Welfenberg
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§ 13-1104(A)(2)–(3); (“[A] conviction cannot be sustained upon the mere confession of the accused .
- State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
- State v. Butler 307 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1957
-
State v. Butler
307 P.2d 916
Ariz. 1957
225 P. 335 , clearly indicated that the corpus delicti can be established by circumstantial evidence alone, and it is apparent that the modern trend is that non-consent of the owner in theft cases can be so shown; we expressly adopt this “modern” rule.
- State v. Lantz 231 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1951
-
State v. Lantz
231 P.2d 454
Ariz. 1951
297 P. 1029 ; , 225 P. 335 .
- State v. Romo 185 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1947
-
State v. Romo
185 P.2d 757
Ariz. 1947
For instance, , 225 P. 335, 337 , defendant had been convicted of the killing of a cow.
- State of Arizona v. Benham 118 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1941
- State of Arizona v. Benham 118 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1941
- Burgunder v. State of Arizona 103 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1940
- Burgunder v. State of Arizona 103 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1940
- Burrows v. State 297 P. 1029 Ariz. 1931
- Burrows v. State 297 P. 1029 Ariz. 1931
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Hann v. State 247 P. 129 Ariz. 1926
- Hann v. State 247 P. 129 Ariz. 1926
- Appel v. State 237 P. 190 Ariz. 1925
- Appel v. State 237 P. 190 Ariz. 1925
- Uren v. State 232 P. 398 Ariz. 1925
- Uren v. State 232 P. 398 Ariz. 1925