giving of the following instruction in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1932–1994 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Singh v. Stategreen ariz · 1929 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1932–1978 2 sentences 1978If, however, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the facts and circumstances proved in the case, that the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged in the information, then it is your duty to find the defendant guilty, even though you may be satisfied 248 from the evidence that the defendant sustained a good character and reputation previous to and up to the time of the commission of the crime charged.” 35 Ariz. at 441, 442 , 280 P. at 675 . 1978If, however, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the facts and circumstances proved in the case, that the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged in the information, then it is your duty to find the defendant guilty, even though you may be satisfied 248 from the evidence that the defendant sustained a good character and reputation previous to and up to the time of the commission of the crime charged.” 35 Ariz. at 441, 442 , 280 P. at 675 .	1	2
State v. Jacksongreen ariz · 1966 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966). 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Salinas v. Kahn green arizctapp · 1965 2 sentences 1994This section shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or main-traveled portion of a highway in such manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in such position.’ 2 Ariz.App. at 187 , 407 P.2d at 126 . 1994This section shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or main-traveled portion of a highway in such manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in such position.’ 2 Ariz.App. at 187 , 407 P.2d at 126 .	1	1994–1994
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain green ariz · 1971 2 sentences 1982And that the proper test is not whether the injurious results or consequences were possible, but whether they were likely to occur according to the usual experience of persons.” Appellant contends that the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law, See Arizona Public Service Co. v. Brittain, 107 Ariz. 278 , 486 P.2d 176 (1971), and that it was not supported by the evidence. 1982And that the proper test is not whether the injurious results or consequences were possible, but whether they were likely to occur according to the usual experience of persons.” Appellant contends that the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law, See Arizona Public Service Co. v. Brittain, 107 Ariz. 278 , 486 P.2d 176 (1971), and that it was not supported by the evidence.	1	1982–1982
State v. Valencia neutral arizctapp · 1965 1 sentence 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966).	1	1969–1969
Porris v. State green ariz · 1926 1 sentence 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966).	1	1969–1969
Murphy v. State of Arizona green ariz · 1937 2 sentences 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966). 1969State v. Valencia, 2 Ariz.App 301, 408 P.2d 234 (1965); Murphy v. State, 50 Ariz. 481 , 73 P.2d 110 (1937); Porris v. State, 30 Ariz. 442 , 247 P.2d 1101 (1926): “It is also almost universally recognized that proof of possession by an accused, of recently stolen property, warrants an inference that he was the taker.” State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 401 , 420 P.2d 270, 272 (1966).	1	1969–1969
Trojanovich v. Marshall green ariz · 1963 2 sentences 1967In connection with this ruling the court said: “The giving of the following instruction constituted fundamental and reversible error in that it deprived appellant of a constitutional right.” (Emphasis added) 95 Ariz. at 146 , 388 P.2d at 150 . 1967In connection with this ruling the court said: “The giving of the following instruction constituted fundamental and reversible error in that it deprived appellant of a constitutional right.” (Emphasis added) 95 Ariz. at 146 , 388 P.2d at 150 .	1	1967–1967

Where else courts name it

CA 30 (1923–1969) OR 12 (1931–1982) IL 10 (1886–1971) WA 7 (1909–1971) AZ 6 (1932–1994) MO 6 (1891–1973) NE 5 (1891–1990) ID 4 (1909–1982) IN 4 (1979–2004) IA 4 (1877–1938) MS 3 (1930–2003) KS 3 (1873–2010) GA 3 (1980–1996) AR 3 (1936–1967) KY 2 (1926–1932) OK 2 (1915–1935) AK 2 (1978–1980) WV 2 (1982–1988) CO 2 (1913–1982)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check