DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Merryman, 283 P.2d 239.

56 citing documents.

  • In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Clemons, (noting that the factfinder "is not compelled to accept [the defendant's] story or believe his testimony"); ("[A] conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it."); -76 (1955) (rejecting insufficient evidence argument based on uncorroborated victim testimony).
  • State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ("[A] conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it."); (rejecting argument that uncorroborated victim testimony was insufficient to sustain a conviction).
  • State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
    It is improper for a prosecutor to misstate the law in closing arguments, or make remarks “to inflame the minds of jurors with passion or prejudice or influence the verdict in any degree,” ().
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
    A prosecutor exceeds this authority when he uses his remarks “to inflame the minds of jurors with passion or prejudice or influence the verdict in any degree.”
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
    * * * While the remarks were improper we see nothing in them calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors with passion or prejudice or influence the verdict in any degree.” -75
  • State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
    If there has been no abuse of that discretion and it appears that substantial justice has been done the court will not reverse the judgment.”
  • State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
    has influenced the verdict must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court on motion for a new trial, (citations omitted) If there has been no abuse of that discretion and it appears that substantial justice has been done the court will not reverse the judgment, (citations omitted) Counsel should always confine their argument to the pertinent law and facts of the case.” -75
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
    as supporting his position.
  • State v. Williams 526 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Williams 526 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Gonzales 466 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Gonzales 466 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1970
    we stated that: “ * * * whether or not improper argument in a criminal case has influenced the verdict must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court on motion for a new trial.
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
    we said: "`The general rule is that whether or not improper argument in a criminal case has influenced the verdict must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court on motion for a new trial.
  • State v. Galbreath 400 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Galbreath 400 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. White 398 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. White 398 P.2d 903 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
    * * * If there has been no abuse of that discretion and it appears that substantial justice has been done the court will not reverse the judgment.” , 74- 75
  • State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
    6 , we said: “The general rule is that whether or not improper argument in a criminal case has influenced the verdict must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court on motion for a new trial.
  • State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Silvas 372 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Silvas 372 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
    Carothers v. State, 121 Miss.
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961