State v. Cox

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming the court's denial of a Rule 20 motion when there was sufficient evidence for a jury to infer constructive possession of a weapon
• defining dominion as “absolute ownership,” and control as “to have power over”
• “Constructive possession exists when the prohibited property ‘is found in a place under [the defendant’s] dominion [or] control and under circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the [property].’”
• constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone
• noting constructive possession may be joint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Cox
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2007-12-21· cited 102×
• State v. PAREDES-SOLANO
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-12-24· cited 38×
• State v. Bustamante
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-03-29· cited 31×
• State v. Musgrove
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-12-01· cited 18×
• State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2016-02-11· cited 14×
• State v. Zaragoza
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-02-10· cited 1×
• State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-12-24
• State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-12-01
• Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2023-09-11