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. Eisenlord, 670 P.2d 1209.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Dzieglo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Dzieglo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    In the middle of a trial, a continuance should only be granted in “the most exigent circumstances.”
  • State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (concluding that the prosecutor's comments were proper as defense counsel had given notice of entrapment was a defense).
  • State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling “unless it clearly appears that the discretion of the trial court has been so abused as to prejudice the defendant.”
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “[E]vidence of [a] crime[ ] other than th[at] for which [a] defendant is being tried is not admissible because of the questionable relevancy of the evidence and prejudice to [the] defendant.” -95, -19 (App. 1983).
  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    A defendant, however, “‘is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury, but merely by one which is fair and impartial.’” quoting Thompson, 68 Ariz. at 391, 206 P.2d at 1040.
  • State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (error for prosecutor to argue that defendant had “predisposition to commit a crime”).
  • 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. Green 844 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Green 844 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    “A verdict of guilt may not be based upon grounds that defendant, having committed previous crimes, is likely to have committed the offense in question.”
  • State v. Bernecker 791 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Fowler, 137 Ariz. at 385 , .
  • State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
    (“A conviction will not be set aside due to mere technical errors or defects in the record which do not affect a defendant’s substantial rights.”).
  • State v. Blackhoop 763 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Blackhoop 763 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    : *476 A conviction will not be set aside due to mere technical errors or defects in the record which do not affect a defendant’s substantial rights.
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985