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. Sexton, 787 P.2d 1097.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ¶19 Prospective jurors should be struck for cause whenever their answers during voir dire “demonstrate serious misgivings about the ability to be fair and impartial.” -03, -99 (App. 1989).
  • State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Rather the facts here, after considering Juror N.D.’s later statements regarding drinking and driving, , in which we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not excusing for cause a juror who was biased against drinking and was “not sure” if she could follow the reasonable doubt standard in a DUI case.
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    -03 , -99 (App.1989) (court should strike potential juror for cause when answers demonstrate serious misgivings about the ability to be fair and impartial).
  • 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
    -03 , -99 (App.1989) (“When a potential juror’s answers demonstrate serious misgivings about the ability to be fair and impartial, that juror should be struck for cause.
  • 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
    ficers to be more credible than others, , who believed that the charge alone showed the defendant’s guilt, , rev'd on other grounds, , and, in a case involving alcohol, who expressed bias against those who drink
  • State v. Bingham 859 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Bingham 859 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    -03 , -99 (App.1989), we reversed a conviction for driving under the influence with a suspended license because the trial court failed to follow Rule 18.4(b) by excusing a juror with an admitted bias against drinking alcohol.
  • State v. Huerta 855 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Huerta 855 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    -03 , -99 (Ct.App.1989) (trial judge erred in not discharging potential juror for cause when juror expressed misgivings regarding her bias against drunk drivers and she failed to assure the court that she would be fair); -02 , -90 (Ct.App.19
  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Defendant contends that reversal is required, , rev. denied (March 20, 1990).
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    Rhodes, , (“Where jurors upon being questioned admit they have read and remembered an article pertaining to the case but state that they have not formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence of the defendant, it has been held that a failure to strike such jurors for cause is not an abuse of the court’s discretion.”) (citation omitted); -03 , -99 (App.1989) (“When a potential juror’s answers demonstrate serious misgivings *391 about the ability to be fair and impartial, that juror should be struck
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990