Legal Opinion

State v. Stotts

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 29, 1968No. 2 CA-CR 127PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOLLOY, Judge.

This appeal questions the propriety of failing to instruct a jury in a criminal action that, before there could be conviction on circumstantial evidence, each fact essential to complete a chain of circumstantial evidence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and such evidence must exclude every rational hypothesis of innocence.

The defendant was charged with burglary and grand theft and convicted on both counts. The evidence establishes that the defendant was in the victim’s home as a guest on the day preceding the offense. Two days later, he was apprehended in Dallas,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1267 v. Dade CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. United States v. PressCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
  5. United States v. Fred Michael ContiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Guerrero v. CarlesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State v. ZappiaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  3. Ambrose v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
  4. State v. JohnsArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  5. State v. RubinoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API