Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Counterman, 448 P.2d 96.
- State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
-
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios
502 P.3d 474
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
¶20 Jurden, for his argument that there can be only one conviction here.
- State v. R.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. R.W.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Davis, 206 Ariz. at 390, ¶ 64 ( and United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 1992)).
- State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Patton
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Multiple events are not duplicitous, however, if they are “part of one and the same transaction, and as a whole constitute but one and the same offense.” Klokic, 219 Ariz. at 245, ¶ 17, 196 P.3d at 848 ( ).
- State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
-
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne
306 P.3d 17
Ariz. 2013
-32, -02 (1968) (upholding assault conviction where two assaults occurring as part of a continuous course of conduct were charged in one count).
- State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
State v. Klokic
196 P.3d 844
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
it is incumbent upon the prosecution to elect which one of such acts it relies upon for a conviction”); , (“Requiring such an election safeguards a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict with respect to the criminal act for which he was tried.”); , (holding that if evidence of more offenses than are charged is presented, “the trial court has the duty to require the State to elect upon which of the offenses it relies for conviction”).
- State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-
State v. Dixon
622 P.2d 501
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
that “a person has a constitutional right to be put on trial for a single offense, and .
- Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Villalpando v. Reagan
121 P.3d 172
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Thus, the sole issue is whether a conflict-barred prosecutor’s nomination of substitute counsel violates a defendant’s federal and state due-process rights to “fundamental fairness.” 3 *308 ¶ 8 Without question, certain prosecutorial conflicts may implicate due-process concerns, see, -30, -100 (1969), and a court does have the authority to disqualify a prosecutor or a prosecutor’s office for a conflict of interest.
- State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
-
State v. Davis
79 P.3d 64
Ariz. 2003
cf. United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 512 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that under federal law a unanimous jury verdict is nonwaivable).
- State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-
State v. Solano
930 P.2d 1315
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
is admitted in evidence the trial court has the duty to require the State to elect upon which of the offenses it relies for conviction.”
- State v. Witwer 856 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Witwer
856 P.2d 1183
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
While there is authority for the proposition that it is not error at all to fail to instruct the jury that they must agree unanimously on what particular act or acts occurred which constituted the crime, , , and State v. Keith, 24 Ariz.App.
- State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
-
State v. Schad
788 P.2d 1162
Ariz. 1989
Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, , the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.
- State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Kelly 716 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Bishop 698 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. Berndt
672 P.2d 1311
Ariz. 1983
As we stated in State v. Encinas, supra: “Although an appellant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, , the appellant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed, (citing cases)” Id.
- State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. Gerlaugh
654 P.2d 800
Ariz. 1982
In Encinas we stated: “Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, , the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise *169 manner in which the act was committed.
- State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. Encinas
647 P.2d 624
Ariz. 1982
Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, , the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.
- State v. Allen 608 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
-
State v. Allen
608 P.2d 95
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Even though appellant could have been convicted of the purse-snatching as a separate crime, , , is misplaced.
- State v. Rocco 579 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-
State v. Rocco
579 P.2d 65
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Art. 2, § 23, and Art. 6, § 17
- State v. Keith 537 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Keith 537 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Waldrop 523 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Waldrop
523 P.2d 781
Ariz. 1974
See State v. Maloney [ , ], supra; , ”
- State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
State v. Hill
463 P.2d 125
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In support of his contention that the subsequent prosecution is barred because it arose out of the same transaction’ for which he had already been prosecuted