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. Cumbo, 451 P.2d 333.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    we reasoned that the “absen[ce] [of] an explanation that the picture was taken at [a] defendant’s arrest on the charge involved, intimates to the jury that 6 STATE v. SUTHERLAND Decision of the Court [the] defe
  • Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Further proceedings in any later trial based upon the same facts must be in conformity with the habeas corpus decision.”
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    see also Smith, 184 Ariz. at 458 , 910 P.2d at 3 (“A pleading defendant waives the right to direct appeal and may seek review only by filing in the trial court a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32.”); Montgomery, 181 Ariz. at 259 n. 2, 889 P.2d at 617 n. 2 (“[W]e h
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    the court stated that "a person may waive his constitutional rights if he does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” construed in Davis v. Dunbar, 394 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.) cert.
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    “A person may waive his constitutional rights if he does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” Id.
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    403, 17A A.R.S.; , (prejudicial error to admit mug shot and tell jury photo taken before crime committed); , (error to suggest criminal record or use term “mug shot”); , (same).
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Defendant contends that the mere mention of “mug shot” is fundamental error, requiring reversal regardless of the failure to object or otherwise afford the trial court an opportunity to cure the error, citing:
  • State v. Jackson 535 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Jackson 535 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    No profile shot of the defendant was attached to this full face view, , and no numbers were visible below the picture, , and no testimony was elicited as to when the picture was taken.
  • State v. Nunez 534 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Nunez 534 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    it was said: “It is this Court’s opinion that the double-shot picture with front and profile alongside of each other, unless disguised so as not to appear to be a ‘mug shot,’ and absent an explanation that the picture was taken at defendant’s arrest on the charge involved, intimates to the jury
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
    The Court of Appeals stated: ‘It is this Court’s opinion that the double-shot picture with front and profile alongside each other, unless disguised so as not to appear to be a “mug shot”, and absent an explanation that the picture was taken at defendant’s arrest on the charge involved, intimates to the jury that defendant had a prior criminal record.’
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
    the pictures were clearly “mug shots” and without an explanation as to when the pictures were taken the clear inference was that the defendants had a prior criminal record.
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
    ■ The Court of Appeals stated: “It is this Court’s opinion that the double-shot picture with front and profile alongside each other, unless disguised so as not to appear to be a ‘mug shot’, and absent an explanation that the picture was taken at defendant’s arrest on the charge involved, intimates to the jury that defendant had a prior criminal record.”
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971