DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Randall v. Eyman, 425 P.2d 570.

16 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 372 P.3d 999 Ariz. 2016
  • State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (stating that when two convictions are improperly based on one act, the “lesser” conviction is the one to vacate); -02 , -72 (1967) (holding that, where marijuana was possessed for only one sale, the possession conviction must be vacated because “there is only one transaction involved and only one offense committed”).
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    State v. Petralia, supra
  • State v. Kiser 546 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    the court stated, , : “ ‘ * * * a crucial element of the defense of entrapment is that the intent to commit the crime must not arise in the mind of the accused.
  • State v. Rubino 531 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
    e v. Boccelli, supra, and we have held that in order for there to be a showing of entrapment “there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, * * * providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient * * State v. Boccelli, supra, 105 Ariz. at 497 , 467 P.2d at 742
  • State v. McKinney 501 P.2d 378 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Bartky 493 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    a case wherein the Arizona Supreme Court did not permit counts of both possession and possession for sale of marijuana to stand, , where our Supreme Court did not permit a conviction of both possession and possession for sale of
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
    we stated that: “In order to effectively claim the defense of entrapment, there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of - undue persuasion, or inducement to commit a crime that defendant would not have otherwise committed, not just the providing of the mere opportunity for .the.
  • State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Martin 474 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1970
    We said there: “This court has held that in order to be a valid claim of entrapment, there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient, , .
  • State v. Boccelli 467 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
    This court has held that in order to be a valid claim of entrapment, there has to exist activity by the State in the nature of an inducement to commit a crime which the accused would not have otherwise committed, although providing the mere opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient, , .
  • State v. Hanshe 466 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1970