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. Stone, 594 P.2d 558.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    Although this requires a court to instruct the jury appropriately when voluntariness is genuinely at issue, the “court may refuse [a] request for a voluntariness instruction if the evidence has not raised a question of whether his statements were voluntary.” -02 (1978) (affirming a trial court’s refusal to instruct on voluntariness even though the defendant moved to suppress a confession and requested a voluntariness instruction, because the defendant “failed to present any evidence from which t
  • State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶4 During deliberations, the jury provided the superior court a note requesting a definition of “shield.” the court proposed responding to the question by directing the jury that “shield” is defined as “[t]he holding or detaining of a person by force as defense or potential protection against interception, interference or retaliation by law enforcement personnel.” Jacobs did not object, and later argued for t
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“Arizona does not recognize a right to hybrid representation.”); (“[T]here is no constitutional right to hybrid representation under either the federal or our state constitution.”).
  • Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Salerno v. Espinoza 115 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    See, -18 , -63 (1992) (“[Elven if the trial judge has no intention of responding to the jury, and does not respond, the judge must still inform the parties of the communication and allow the parties to voice their positions or concerns for the record.”); , (acknowledging clerk’s statutory duty to keep the court’s minutes).
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    both by himself and by counsel acting alternately or at the same time.” , (emphasis added).
  • Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Defendant has no right to such “hybrid representation.”
  • State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Rickman 715 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Rickman 715 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
    (certified copy of minute entry sufficient to prove prior conviction); State v. Black, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dixon 617 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Dixon 617 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Cannon 618 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Cannon 618 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980