DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Laughter, 625 P.2d 327.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Sandoval Beltran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Sandoval Beltran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (noting the voluntariness of consent to a search includes whether the police displayed guns); Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227 (stating that "knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account"); –67 (App. 1980) (finding that a lack of threatening words or actions and the defendant being "cooperative in all matters" weighed in favor of finding voluntary consent).
  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Al-Zaidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Al-Zaidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (statutory 3 STATE v. AL-ZAIDY Decision of the Court scheme permits a defendant convicted of a dangerous offense to be sentenced to the increased terms applicable to repeat nondangerous offenders).
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    -69 , -32 (App.1980) (holding that defendant with prior non-dangerous convictions was subject to sentencing as a repeat offender or for a first dangerous offense); , (rejecting argument that sentencing for a dangerous offense conviction
  • State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
    (finding that because Arizona’s dangerous offenses penalty statute was silent on whether its provisions superseded those in the repetitive offender sentencing statute, the trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant as a repetitive offender).
  • State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    DISCUSSION ¶ 12 “With regard to jury instructions, fundamental error occurs “when the trial judge fails to instruct upon matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.’ ” ¶ 11 , ( , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Citing Goddard v. Superior Court, 191 Ariz. 402, P.2d 327 (App. 1980), the state urges that we look beyond the language of the statute to avoid this outcome.
  • State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    With regard to jury instructions, fundamental error occurs “when the trial judge fails to instruct upon matters vital to a proper consideration of the evidence.”
  • State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    § 13-604(J) (enhancing dangerous class 2 or 3 felony offense with certain dangerous prior felony convictions)
  • State v. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.”); -67 , -30 (App.1980) (same).
  • State v. Knorr 921 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Knorr 921 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (emphasis added); , (“We find no merit to appellant’s contention that the trial court is required to ignore his two prior felony convictions simply because the armed robbery conviction is his first dangerous nature
  • State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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. Schad 691 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Schad 691 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984