DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McIntyre, 477 P.2d 529.

41 citing documents.

  • State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Derrico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (noting that use of a deadly weapon is 5 STATE v. DERRICO Decision of the Court sufficient evidence of intent).
  • State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (“‘[I]nstructions must be predicated on some theory of the case which may be found in the evidence, and, when not so predicated, they should not be given, as their tendency would be to mislead the jury.’”) ( ).
  • State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (“The long-established rule is that where requested instructions are adequately covered by other instructions of *340 the trial court, it is not error to refuse them.”).
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
    we set forth the test for determining whether evidence in a particular case is sufficient to warrant the giving of a particular jury instruction, as follows: “[I]f the evidence presented in a case is sufficient to support some theory by which the jury might have reasonably found the defendant gu
  • State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
    We have held: “that if the evidence presented in a case is sufficient to support some theory by which the jury might have reasonably found the defendant guilty of the offense which was the subject of an instruction, then the instruction was properly given.”
  • State v. Barr 565 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Barr 565 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    § 13-302 which defines burglary; and (2)
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Gary 543 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Gary 543 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1975
    We have stated: “It is, of course, the general rule that instructions must be predicated on some theory of the case which may be found in the evidence, and, when not so predicated, they should not be given, as their tendency would be to mislead the jury, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
    §§ 13-451, 13-452 A.R.S.
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Duke 518 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1974