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. Filipov, 576 P.2d 507.

35 citing documents.

  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (references to defendant as “Gypsy,” combined with other improper statements, showed inappropriate attempt to link the defendant to the Mafia and appeal to juror prejudice).
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    (finding standing when “defendants have alleged a possible harm to their own cases that could potentially affect their own due process rights to a fair trial”); , (finding standing when defendant’s due process claim involved challenge to legality of co-defendant’s sentence reduction).
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    We note preliminarily that the doctrine of cumulative error is not recognized in Arizona, , absent related errors, 324, 325 , 512, 513 (App.1978).
  • State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    -24 , -12 (App. *197 1978).
  • State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
    See generally Annotation, Counsel’s Appeal In Criminal Case to Racial, National, or Religious Prejudice as Ground for Mistrial, New Trial, or Reversal, 45 A.L.R.2d 303 (1956)
  • State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    we wrote: We believe that the state or the defense may properly comment upon the failure of the other party to produce a witness in appropriate circumstances.
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    we wrote: We believe that the state or the defense may properly comment upon the failure of the other party to produce a witness in appropriate circumstances.
  • State v. Pike 650 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Pike 650 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Ultimately, , and State v. Woodward, 21 Ariz.App.