DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henderson, 569 P.2d 252.

34 citing documents.

  • ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    in the context of other circumstances indicate[s] consent.” (inferring consent to a mistrial when defense counsel “actively participated” and had “every opportunity” to object but did not do so).
  • Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    The defendant who requests a mistrial is generally deemed to have consented to a retrial, thus “remov[ing] the bar of double jeopardy.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
    1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), noting Kelly’s facts were “near the outer limits of the common scheme or plan exception.” Henderson, -18 , -60 (App.1977).
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Alvarez 701 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Alvarez 701 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
    procedure held unnecessarily suggestive where out of the 17 photos shown the witness, only the two depicting the defendant had been altered to include a mustache and goatee); Styers v. Smith, 659 F.2d 293 (2d Cir.1981) (photographic identification procedure held unnecessarily suggestive because the photos of the suspects were in color, while the rest were in black and white); , (lineup was unnecessarily suggestive because made up of individuals twelve to sixteen years younger than suspect).
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Way 631 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Way 631 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
    Case law first interpreting rule 609(a) in 1977 required that the determination of whether a prior conviction could be used for impeachment called for the trial court’s exercise of discretion and consideration of factors such as age, character of offense
  • State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 13.-3(a)(3)
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978