Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thomas, 275 P.2d 408.

101 citing documents.

Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Allison v. Ovens 421 P.2d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
overruled on other grounds, , .
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
and Young v. State, supra.
State v. Armenta 402 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1965
State v. Armenta 402 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1965
is court said: “It is generally advisable in a criminal case that the county attorney have the prosecuting witness at hand so that he may, from time to time, question him in regard to the facts of the case in order that it may be properly presented to the jury, and such is the almost universal practice in this State.” , ; , cert.
State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Pina 383 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1963
State v. Pina 383 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1963
State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
State v. Weis 375 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1962
State v. Weis 375 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1962
State v. Dowthard 373 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1962
State v. Dowthard 373 P.2d 357 Ariz. 1962
affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
* * * ” , ; , affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
All that is necessary, and all that is possible, is that each bit may have enough rational connection with the issue to be considered a factor contributing to an answer.” , , the objection of remoteness goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.
State v. Holden 352 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1960
State v. Pulliam 349 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1960
State v. Pulliam 349 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1960
151 P. 738 ; , 207 P. 465 .
State v. Reid 348 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1960
State v. Reid 348 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1960
State v. Romero 336 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1959
State v. Romero 336 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1959
State v. Hernandez 320 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1958
State v. Hernandez 320 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1958
State v. Lee 295 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1956
State v. Lee 295 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1956
Janovich v. State, 1927, , 256 P. 359 ; Young v. State, supra; Burgunder v. State, 1940, , ; State v. Thomas, 1954, , .
State v. Boozer 291 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1955
State v. Boozer 291 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1955
We have repeatedly held that attorneys are given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury, , ; and it is the universal rule that if improper statements are made by counsel during the trial it is the duty of opposing counsel to register an objection thereto so that the court may make a correction by proper instruction and, if the' offense be sufficiently hurtful, declare a mistrial.
State v. Thomas 285 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1955