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. Davis, 672 P.2d 480.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Kitko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Kitko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Satzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Satzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    olding good cause existed to grant a motion to reconsider where the first trial judge’s decision relied on an incorrect statute and factual misrepresentations by the State); n.1, n.1 (App. 1988) (noting that good cause existed for the State to point out the factual errors and incorrect legal standard used by the trial court); 672 10 Appellant’s briefs do not challenge the constitutionality of A.R.S.
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (holding the trial court does not err in refusing to strike a juror for cause “when he ultimately assures the court that he can be objective”) ().
  • State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (because “current definitions of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and child molesting are identical to the former definitions of those crimes, .
  • State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (declining to “indulge in an assumption .
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See, (noting the court could not make an assumption the jury was tainted).
  • State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    Ct. 1976) (concluding police detective should have been dismissed for cause given totality of circumstances, including fact that detective knew several police witnesses and worked for same department); 559-60, 488-89 (App. 1983) (upholding refusal to strike civilian police assistant for cause, emphasizing “he was not acquainted with the police officers in this case”).
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
    See, , -99 , -54 (1984); -61 , -90 (App.1983); -18 , -84 (App.1980).
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    (“Unless there are objective indications of jurors’ prejudice, we will not presume its existence.”); , (appellant had burden of showing that remarks of excused juror prejudiced others); , , 487 *62 (App.1983) (court will not assume that panel was prejudiced).
  • State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    “Moreover, the party asserting that the trial court erred in denying a motion to strike a juror for cause has the burden of establishing that the juror is incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    that the panel was tainted.” , , 487 (App. 1983).
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    “Moreover, the party asserting that the trial court erred in denying a motion to strike a juror for cause has the burden of establishing that the juror is incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.” , , 488 (App. 1983) ( , , ).
  • State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
    (as absence of witnesses to the alleged crimes rendered credibility of defendant of considerable importance, trial court did not err in allowing impeachment with prior conviction); , (where key issue in child molestation case was credibility of defendant and victim, trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting one of defendant’s two prior convictions for impeachment purposes); , (where direct conflict of test