Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reasoner, 742 P.2d 1363.

36 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
A trial court’s determination of a prospective juror’s impartiality will not be disturbed, therefore, “absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”
State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See, ¶ 28 (2005) (citing cases); Jimenez, 255 Ariz. at 554 ¶ 13; (similar).
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(App. 17 STATE v. PUGA Jacobs, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part 1987).
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Accordingly, the court must strike a juror who expresses “serious misgivings about his ability” to be fair and impartial, but need not remove a juror who “ultimately assures the court that he can be objective,”
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(holding that a juror who assures the court that he or she can be fair and impartial need not be excused).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Lujan, 184 Ariz. at 560; –84 (App. 1987).
State v. Dunbar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dunbar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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 v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
To do so, the challenging party must show that the jurors “could not be fair and impartial.” -84, -70 (App. 1987).
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
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. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
A prospective juror should be struck for cause “when a juror’s answers demonstrate that he has serious misgivings about his ability to be a fair and impartial juror.”
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Jeney 787 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Jeney 787 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989