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. Callahan, 580 P.2d 355.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    P. 24.1(d), it will not receive such evidence to impeach “matters inherent in the verdict,” namely, the “subjective motives or mental processes which led a juror to his verdict.”
  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
    ion or ‘outside influence’ within the rule’s exception to juror testimonial-incompetence because the rule forbids ‘an inquiry by the court into a juror’s subjective motives for voting’ on the verdict”) (citations omitted); see also Rule 24.1(d) (extrinsic evidence does not include “subjective motives or mental processes which led a juror to assent or dissent from the verdict”)
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    and we decline appellant’s invitation to revisit that decision.
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Division One of this court was presented with a situation in which the foreman of a jury submitted an affidavit stating that during deliberations, the jury had considered the defendant’s failure to take the stand and that this failure was a factor in reaching the verdict.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    199 , 78 L.Ed.2d 174 (1983); , (trial judge made full disclosure of witness’ letters received prior to sentencing but because no prejudice shown disqualification not necessary).
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    See State v. Acosta, supra; State v. Collins, supra
  • State v. Covington 666 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Covington 666 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    2 *44 , State v. Landrum, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Collins 635 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Collins 635 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Trial by Jury, Sec.
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
    But to protect the integrity of the verdict and the privacy of the jury’s deliberations, only the misconduct set forth in Rule 24.-1(c)(3) provides grounds for a new trial
  • State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Smith 593 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1979