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. Verive, 627 P.2d 721.

66 citing documents.

  • 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. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Accordingly, Kartz’s and Badalamenti’s testimony was not unnecessarily cumulative, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to preclude.7 (“To reject relevant evidence on the basis of unfair prejudice and cumulativeness is within the discretion of the trial court.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    “Any action sufficient to corroborate the existence of the agreement and to show that it is being put into effect is sufficient to support the conspiracy.”
  • State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Any action sufficient to corroborate the existence of the agreement and to show that it is being put into effect is sufficient to support the conspiracy.”
  • State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    § 13-570 (1956) (prohibiting perjury by subornation and attempted perjury by subornation); -81 , -32 (App.1981) (distinguishing between “completed crime of dissuading a witness” and “inchoate” offense of attempt to dissuade witness); 5 cf. A.R.S.
  • State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
    See State v. Verive, 128 Ariz. 570, 574-75, -26 (App. 1981); see also State v. Gortarez, 141 Ariz. 254, 258, (discussing the denial of a motion for a redetermination of probable cause).
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    (noting that Basurto is the only exception to the rule that a "defendant cannot, by appeal from a conviction, obtain review of matters relevant only to the grand jury proceedings”).
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
    The trial court must ask prospective jurors questions “it deems necessary to determine their qualifications,” , and that will “unveil a juror’s prejudices.”
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    at 316-17 , 746 P.2d at 486-87
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
  • State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
    That court also mentioned the doctrine, in dicta, -81 , -32 (App.1981) and, in a later case, upheld the propriety of instructing the jury *499 on the doctrine in the face of a claim that it constituted a comment on the evidence.
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    938, 943 , 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) (petit jury’s guilty verdict rendered harmless any conceivable error in the grand jury’s charging decision caused by alleged violation of rule 6(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure); -75 , -26 (1981) (defendant cannot, by appeal from conviction, obtain review of matters relevant only to grand jury proceedings that had no effect on the subsequent trial).
  • State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Criticized State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    we stated: The primary focus of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement itself, the collusion, the secrecy and the resulting threat to society that such criminal liaisons create.
  • State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Apodaca 801 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Arredondo 746 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Arredondo 746 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    (appellate court will review trial court’s rejection of evidence for a reason listed under Rule 403 to determine if there was an abuse of discretion.)
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 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).