Arizona Supreme Court· 7/29/1982

State v. Hickle

Citations

650 P.2d 1216
133 Ariz. 234
1982 Ariz. LEXIS 236

How courts have described this case

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

noting that trial judges are “in the best position to evaluate [recanted testimony’s] credibility and effect”
affirming grant of new trial based on newly discovered evidence of co-participant’s perjury at trial, rejecting state’s assertion that defendant’s conviction should be sustained based on accomplice liability
disagreeing with trial court’s determination “no credible, clear evidence” was introduced of premeditation under sufficiency of the evidence analysis
“Being a void order [entered by a court without the jurisdictional power to do so], it is of no force and effect and may not be a basis of a double jeopardy bar.”
“[T]o prove accomplice liability, the State must show that [the defendant] participated or aided the planning or commission of the crime.... His presence at the scene of the crime is not necessarily enough.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cameron, Feldman, Gordon, Hays, Holohan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.