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. Luque, 829 P.2d 1244.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
    or when defendant’s right to twelve person jury waived by defense counsel’s stipulation with state that sentences would run concurrently, resulting in a sentence of less than thirty years); ¶¶ 10, 12, (judge’s assurance that sentences would run concurrently did not cure error in failing to empanel a jury of twelve); (acquittal 10 State v. Pope, which held that a defendant could not be deprived of a twelve-person jury by a judge’s assurance that a sentence of less than thirty years would be impos
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Our cases have referred to this error both as “fundamental error,” , ¶ 21 , , ¶ 10 , and as “structural error,” ¶¶ 21-22 , State v. Ring (Ring III), -66, ¶¶ 106-07 , -47 (2003) (Feldman, J., co
  • State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ¶ 7 “It is well-settled that a 12-person jury is required if a defendant’s cumulative possible sentence totals 30 years or more.” , see Ariz. Const, art. II, § 23; A.R.S.
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    ("commencement of deliberations is the crucial point” in determining when defendant’s right to twelve-person jury under article II, § 23 of Arizona Constitution attaches)
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (trial by eight, rather than twelve, jurors not harmless error “because we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper eight-person jury did not significantly contribute to the defendant’s burglary conviction”).
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Pope 961 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Pope 961 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (acquittal on one or more charges so that maximum cumulative sentence could not exceed thirty years does not cure failure to empanel a twelve-member jury); , (state’s withdrawal of allegations of prior felonies after verdict will not cure
  • State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994