DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hash v. State of Arizona, 59 P.2d 305.

53 citing documents.

  • State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    e crime, or instruct the jury that they must agree unanimously on a specific act that constitutes the crime before the defendant can be found guilty.” 3 Schroeder, 167 Ariz. at 54, 804 P.2d at 783 (Kleinsehmidt, J., concurring); see also Davis, 206 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 61 , 79 P.3d at 77 (holding that the State must make an election where failure to do so risks a non-unanimous verdict); , (stating, in a statutory rape ease, that where the evidence “tends to show ...
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
    When, however, “the evidence shows, or tends to show, that several acts of intercourse have occurred between defendant and prosecuting witness, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to elect which one of such acts it relies upon for a conviction.”
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
    Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to also give a , which expands on the reasonable doubt concept.
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
    I. “Hash” Instruction A Hash instruction conveys the idea “[t]hat no person should be convicted upon suspicion or mere probability or from the fact that he may have had an opportunity to commit the crime.”
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    Since the jury requested the repeated playings of the taped confession, the court acted within its discretion in allowing the tape to be played in open court and in instructing the jury to review all of the instructions as an alternative to defense counsel’s
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Clovis 618 P.2d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    VI FAILURE TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the “Hash” instruction, , which states that no conviction can stand on suspicion, mere probability or supposition.
  • State v. Mikels 582 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Mikels 582 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    and Rule 13.5(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
    In asserting the court’s refusal to give these instructions as error
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Adrian 522 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1974
    wherein we said: “The law is well settled that, where the evidence shows or tends to show, that several acts of intercourse have occurred between defendant and prosecuting witness, it is incumbent upon the ¡prosecution to elect which one of such acts it relies upon for conviction.” While
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
    said it was reversible error not to give such an instruction; however, it also stated that “[i]f * * * the same thought was covered by the court’s instructions, then the refusal of these would not be error.” 48 Ariz. at page 58 , 59 P.2d at page 311 .
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    15 P. 673 (1887); , 20 P. 94 (1889); , 35 P. 1059 (1894); , 56 P. 738 (1899); , 149 P. 380 (1915); , 168 P. 508 (1917); , 225 P. 482 (1924); , 247 P. 129 (1926)
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
    State v. Dillon, supra; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    This rule was recognized by our Supreme Court in , wherein the Court stated: “The law is well settled that, where the evidence shows, or tends to show, that several acts of intercourse have occurred between defendant and prosecuting witness, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to elect which one of such acts he relies upon for a conviction.” The
  • State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
    If- the questions were per *405 sistent enough and cleverly enough framed, no amount of denial on the part of a defendant would be able to erase the impression in the mind of the jury that the prosecutor actually had such facts at hand and that probably there was some truth to the insinuations.” * * * * * * “ , ; , 218 P. 981 ; , ; , 201 P. 398 ; and State v. Byrd, [ , ] supra; our court has laid down the rule that no prosecuting officer, in order to impeach a witness, can engage in such q
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    State v. Martin, 2 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Simmering 361 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Simmering 361 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Walker 321 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1958
  • State v. Walker 321 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1958
    We considered alibi as a , , and concluded an “on or about” allegation of time is sufficient under the law.
  • State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1957
  • State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1957
    Basically defendant’s argument is the same as that made ■ , , , , namely, that when, as here, the defense is an alibi, time is an important issue to defendant.
  • State v. Elias 249 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1952
  • State v. Elias 249 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1952
  • State v. McLain 245 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1952
  • State v. McLain 245 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1952
    Attorneys are given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury, , ; , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Singleton 182 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1947
  • State v. Singleton 182 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1947
    218 P. 981 ; , ; , 201 P. 398 ; and State v. Byre, supra; our court has laid down the rule that no prosecuting officer, in order to impeach a witness, can engage in such questioning without being *66 pr