11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jensengreen2 sentences1997See State v. Jensen, 106 Ariz. 421, 423 , 477 P.2d 252, 254 (1970). 1997See State v. Jensen, 106 Ariz. 421, 423 , 477 P.2d 252, 254 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harvill
green
2 sentences1977Lastly, appellant claims the court erred in failing to give the following requested instruction: “If the evidence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty to adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant’s innocence and reject the other which points to his guilt.” This is the second half of the circumstantial evidence instruction which was condemned by our Supreme Court in State v. Harvill, 106 Ariz. 386 , 476 P.2d 841 (1970). 1977Lastly, appellant claims the court erred in failing to give the following requested instruction: “If the evidence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty to adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant’s innocence and reject the other which points to his guilt.” This is the second half of the circumstantial evidence instruction which was condemned by our Supreme Court in State v. Harvill, 106 Ariz. 386 , 476 P.2d 841 (1970). | 3 | 1971–1977 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 61-62 , 961 P.2d at 1009-10 . ¶ 7 Musgrove does not contend that the circumstantial-evidence instruction given to the jury was erroneous. 2009Id. at 61-62 , 961 P.2d at 1009-10 . ¶ 7 Musgrove does not contend that the circumstantial-evidence instruction given to the jury was erroneous. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Daymus
green
2 sentences1970However, as stated in Tigue, supra, and in State v. Daymus, 90 Ariz. 294 , 367 P.2d 647 (1961), this rule applies only where the prosecution must rely solely on circumstantial evidence to convict. 1970However, as stated in Tigue, supra, and in State v. Daymus, 90 Ariz. 294 , 367 P.2d 647 (1961), this rule applies only where the prosecution must rely solely on circumstantial evidence to convict. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Madden
green
2 sentences1969State v. Madden, 104 Ariz. 111 , 449 P.2d 39 (1969); State v. Schroeder, supra. Defense counsel contends that the-court erroneouly rejected the defendant’s; proposed instruction No. 11, which added to the instruction on circumstantial evidence, “that each fact which is essential to-complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defense counsel have cited no authority for inclusion of their proffered addendum to the circumstantial evidence instruction.. 1969State v. Madden, 104 Ariz. 111 , 449 P.2d 39 (1969); State v. Schroeder, supra. Defense counsel contends that the-court erroneouly rejected the defendant’s; proposed instruction No. 11, which added to the instruction on circumstantial evidence, “that each fact which is essential to-complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defense counsel have cited no authority for inclusion of their proffered addendum to the circumstantial evidence instruction.. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1969However, this case was expressly disapproved in a recent Arizona Supreme Court case, State v. Miller, 104 Ariz. 335 , 452 P.2d 509 (1969), in which the Court set forth the Arizona rules ■on when the circumstantial evidence instruction is to be given in criminal cases. 1969However, this case was expressly disapproved in a recent Arizona Supreme Court case, State v. Miller, 104 Ariz. 335 , 452 P.2d 509 (1969), in which the Court set forth the Arizona rules ■on when the circumstantial evidence instruction is to be given in criminal cases. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Stotts
green
2 sentences1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). 1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. McCormick
green
2 sentences1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). 1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Bradley
green
2 sentences1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). 1968State v. Stotts, 8 Ariz.App. 340 , 446 P.2d 244 (1968); State v. McCormick, 7 Ariz.App. 576 , 442 P.2d 134 (1968); cf. State v. Bradley, 102 Ariz. 482 , 433 P.2d 273 (1967). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Tigue
green
2 sentences1967The correct rule is stated in State v. Tigue, 95 Ariz. 45 , 386 P.2d 402 (1963). 1967The correct rule is stated in State v. Tigue, 95 Ariz. 45 , 386 P.2d 402 (1963). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.