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. Neese, 616 P.2d 959.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (explaining the prejudicial effect of such "variance").
  • State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “[O]nce a jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a full-scale trial, the question of probable cause is moot.” ¶ 11 (App. 2017) ().
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    “[W]e will not determine the propriety of withholding evidence from a grand jury on an appeal from a subsequent conviction.” –75 (App. 1981) (-03 (App. 1980)).
  • State v. Corley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Corley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    A preliminary hearing and a grand jury proceeding have the same purpose—"to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused committed an offense.”
  • State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Grand jury findings of probable cause are not reviewable on appeal because “the issue of probable cause is a closed question after the 2 STATE v. LIBERT Decision of the Court jury determines a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (“[A]fter a full scale trial in which a jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the question [of whether probable cause exists] is closed.”); –42 (App. 1983) (observing that “once a trial jury has found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt following a proper
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -03 (App. 1980) (“Prior to trial the question of whether probable cause exists is an open one, however, after a full scale trial in which a jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the question is closed.”).
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“Presenting evidence of violations of different statutes does not create separate conspiracies out of one conspiracy.
  • Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); , (preliminary hearings are to determine the existence of probable cause to believe the individual committed an offense; once a jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a full-scale trial, the question of probable cause is moot).
  • Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    They are to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the individual committed an offense.” , see also McKaney, 209 Ariz. at 276 ¶ 37, 100 P.3d at 26 (Hurwitz, J. and Ryan, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part) (a grand jury and a Rule 13.5(c) hearing provide equivalent protection against arbitrary state action).
  • State of Arizona v. Scott Alan Colvin 293 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Scott Alan Colvin 293 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    (affirming denial of evidentiary hearing on admissibility of certain evidence after finding “the disclosures of the state adequately put appellants on notice that the evidence [at issue] might be offered at trial”).
  • McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • 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
    we enunciated the standards to be applied in determining *446 whether a variance between the indictment and the proof presented at trial is fatal.
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
    (defendant cannot, by appeal from a conviction, obtain review of matters relevant only to the grand jury proceedings that had no effect on subsequent trial); -03 , -63 (App.1980).
  • State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    this court held that the trial court’s ruling denying appellant’s motion for a redetermination of probable cause, even though erroneous, did not constitute reversible error following a trial where the jury had determined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Keel 672 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    are inapposite since they involved challenges to grand jury proceedings.
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
    State v. Griffin, supra; , see Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 512, n. 7 , 98 S.Ct.
  • 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