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. Burnetts, 295 P.2d 377.

60 citing documents.

  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    rsing because the jury sent the judge factual questions about the case and the judge answered from his notes “in the absence of the defendant and counsel”); (reversing because although counsel were informed of a jury note, they were not allowed to see the note or to make a record of the incident before the judge answered the questions); (reversing because the judge responded to a jury question about the case without following appropriate safeguards); (reversing because the jury’s note said they
  • State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    P.2d 499 (1974); P.2d 377 (1956).
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
    338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
  • State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
    338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
  • State v. Olsen 760 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Olsen 760 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    “A defendant is entitled to a fair trial and to a verdict of a jury upon the evidence without consideration of the punishment inflicted.”
  • Duran v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 726 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Duran v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 726 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
    at 141-42 , 568 P.2d at 1039-40
  • State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
    See State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz.. 208, United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60 (6th Cir.1966).
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    In so ruling, , , which held to the same effect.
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
    (the trial judge answered from his notes and recollection questions submitted by the jury while deliberating); , , (both cases involved the actual physical intrusion by the judge into the jury room where he communicated orally with the panel on issues of fact and law).
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    State v. Mata, supra; , , , , State v. Corrales, supra.
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    The judge went into the jury room and answered the questions in the note and others posed by the jurors); , (without consulting counsel or making a record, the judge delivered an exhibit to the jury room door and responded to juror’s questions about the case); , (the jury’s note said that they could not reach a decision and the judge responded th
  • State v. Van Dyke 621 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Van Dyke 621 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1980
    It is true a defendant is entitled to a jury verdict based on the evidence and without regard to the possible punishment, , but here, by agreement of the parties, the jury was informed that no death sentence would be rendered.
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
    We find that appellant’s , , , is misplaced.
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    As we said in Streyar, supra, communications between the trial judge and the jury, other than in open court in the presence of the accused and counsel, have mandated reversal where potential prejudice was found
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    we find the court stating: “.
  • State v. Robin 543 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Robin 543 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1975