§

Whitson v. State

65 Ariz. 395 (Ariz. 1947)
Whitson v. State

22 Citing cases

  1. State v. Miller

    178 Ariz. 555 (Ariz. 1994)   Cited 70 times
    Holding prejudice may be "actual" or "fairly presumed from the facts"

    We leave that question for another day, noting only that the improper influence of even one juror taints a verdict. Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 399-400, 181 P.2d 822, 824-25 (1947); Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 475 (Del. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1018, 107 S.Ct. 1898, 95 L.Ed.2d 504 (1987); United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 818, 98 S.Ct. 58, 54 L.Ed.2d 74 (1977).

  2. People v. Wallace

    173 Mich. App. 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    Consequently, we agree with the people that Michigan's married women's property acts abrogated the common-law rule that a husband could not commit larceny against his wife as regards the property described in those acts. See also Stewart v Commonwealth, 219 Va. 887; 252 S.E.2d 329 (1979); People v Morton, 308 N.Y. 96; 123 N.E.2d 790 (1954); Whitson v State, 65 Ariz. 395; 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v Herndon, 158 Fla. 115; 27 So.2d 833 (1946); Hunt v State, 72 Ark. 241; 79 S.W. 769 (1904); Beasley v State, 138 Ind. 552; 38 N.E. 35 (1894). But see State v Arnold, 182 Minn. 313; 235 N.W. 373 (1931); Phillips, supra.

  3. State v. Conn

    137 Ariz. 152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 12 times
    In State v. Conn, 137 Ariz. 152, 669 P.2d 581 (1982), the court affirmed the trial court's denial of a Motion for New Trial because the juror misconduct did not fall within one of the grounds enumerated in Rule 24.

    Assuming, arguendo, that our juror did "receive evidence," under Whitson only if "such communications refer to the case and have a tendency to color the mind of the juror in such a way as to make impossible a fair and impartial trial — a new trial should be granted." (emphasis supplied) 65 Ariz. at 399, 181 P.2d 822. The communications here do not come within this standard.

  4. United States v. Maloney

    607 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining § 661 was not limited to the common-law definition of larceny and the Supreme Court's definition of "stolen" in Turley was applicable in the context of § 661

    Under Arizona law the crime of larceny requires proof of an intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently. State v. Wood, 7 Ariz. App. 22, 435 P.2d 857, 859 (1968); State v. Marsin, 82 Ariz. 1, 307 P.2d 607, 608 (1957); Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 181 P.2d 822, 823 (1947). 3.

  5. State v. Vasquez

    130 Ariz. 103 (Ariz. 1981)   Cited 17 times
    Declining to presume prejudice where juror-witness conversation concerned subjects unrelated to case

    And if such communications refer to the case and have a tendency to color the minds of the juror in such a way as to make impossible a fair and impartial trial and are thus prejudicial to the complaining party, a new trial should be granted." Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 399, 181 P.2d 822, 824 (1947). In the present case, however, the conversation was unrelated to the trial. If it was prejudicial at all, it would appear to be prejudicial to the State because a victim of the crime and the State's witness, Ronald Boston, mentioned his prior arrest record in Missouri.

  6. Mares v. State

    83 N.M. 225 (N.M. 1971)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing denial of a new trial motion based on post-trial revelation that a juror had been present for part of the investigation of the crime scene, where the juror’s good friend was a victim, as an abuse of discretion

    We do not regard this statement as conclusive. People v. DeHaven, 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948); Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 181 P.2d 822 (1947); 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury, § 276. On voir dire, the prospective jurors were asked questions concerning purported knowledge of the facts of the case and the list of witnesses was read out.

  7. State v. Ross

    107 Ariz. 240 (Ariz. 1971)   Cited 12 times

    Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft "requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property." It is true that "intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft", Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 181 P.2d 822 (1947); State v. Cravin, 96 Ariz. 346, 395 P.2d 706 (1964), and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence. State v. Randolph, 99 Ariz. 253, 408 P.2d 397 (1965); State v. Reynolds, 11 Ariz. App. 532, 466 P.2d 405 (1970); Rule 272, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Such is not the case here.

  8. State v. Goodyear

    98 Ariz. 304 (Ariz. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    In State v. Goodyear, 98 Ariz. 304, 404 P.2d 397, reversed on rehearing, 100 Ariz. 244, 413 P.2d 566 (1966), we upheld the trial court's refusal to grant separate trials where confessions were admitted into evidence.

    "`* * * great weight must be given to the ruling of the trial court on the question of granting or denying a motion for a new trial because of alleged misconduct of a juror. And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * *.' Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 399, 181 P.2d 822, 824; State v. Jordan, 83 Ariz. 248, 255, 320 P.2d 446, 450." 89 Ariz. at 164, 359 P.2d at 755.

  9. State v. Mills

    96 Ariz. 377 (Ariz. 1964)   Cited 29 times
    Adopting the rule of no requirement of pecuniary loss so long as the victim has parted with his property: "Once the victim has parted with his property in reliance on a false representation, it is immaterial whether whatever he got in return is equal in exchange value to that with which he parted."

    This Court said: "Admittedly the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of the offense. Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 181 P.2d 822." State v. Marsin, supra, at 3, 307 P.2d at 608.

  10. State v. Garaygordobil

    89 Ariz. 161 (Ariz. 1961)   Cited 22 times
    In State v. Garaygordobil, 89 Ariz. 161, 359 P.2d 753 (1961), a somewhat similar question was asked, but there the court required the witness to answer the question.

    And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * *." Whitson v. State, 65 Ariz. 395, 399, 181 P.2d 822, 824; State v. Jordan, 83 Ariz. 248, 255, 320 P.2d 446, 450. The defendant lastly assigns as error the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial based upon the improper cross-examination of the defendant.