Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Burnetts, 295 P.2d 377.

60 citing documents.

State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
Such instruction may be given and such testimony read only after notice to the county attorney and counsel for the defendant.” Although we have stated that it is error to communicate to the jury out of the presence of counsel and the defendant, , and that the defendant is not required to show prejudice, , we have also stated that: “Rule 231, Par.
State v. Werring 523 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1974
State v. Werring 523 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1974
we were confronted with an almost identical situation and said: “ .
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
American Honda Motor Co. v. Smith 518 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Neil 407 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Neil 407 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
had occasion to consider the question of communications between the trial judge and a deliberating jury.