Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jordan, 294 P.2d 677.

51 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero Ariz. 2026
But “[w]e do not reverse cases for mere technical errors when it appears substantial justice has been done.”
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Even assuming the nature of the violation is fundamental, ¶ 63 (1998) (noting an improper comment regarding the invocation of the privilege against self- incrimination, whether direct or indirect, violates state and federal constitutional law) (); Corrales, 138 Ariz. at 591, “[p]rosecutorial misconduct is harmless error if we can find beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 32 ( ).
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Suells 592 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Suells 592 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
We have held that it is error for a prosecutor to initiate such an argument, , and it is also error to introduce testimony regarding the disposition of an insane defendant.
State v. Blackwood 544 P.2d 661 Ariz. 1976
State v. Blackwood 544 P.2d 661 Ariz. 1976
State v. Lenahan 471 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Lenahan 471 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The court said it did not believe that this case was a
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Dessureault 453 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1969
State v. Dessureault 453 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
.” The defendant cites no cases which hold that it is reversible error for the trial court to refuse to permit counsel to read in closing argument, books or other writings not in evidence.
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
§ 13-163 , , it has always been error to comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify at the trial of a matter.
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Pierson 425 P.2d 115 Ariz. 1967
State v. Pierson 425 P.2d 115 Ariz. 1967
a murder case which construed A.R.S.
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Acosta 416 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
State v. Acosta 416 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
State v. Jackson 412 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1966
State v. Jackson 412 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1966
State v. Brazeal 408 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1965
State v. Brazeal 408 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1965
we stated: "`* * * It is elementary that arguments must be based on facts which the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not or could not be received in evidence.'" , .
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. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Daymus 367 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1961
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
680: “ * * * It is elementary that arguments must be based on facts which the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not or could not be received in evidence.” This Court does not in the present case minimize the statement from State v. Jordan, supra.
State v. Fenton 341 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1959
State v. Fenton 341 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1959
This court has repeatedly held, , ; , ; , ; , , that the county attorney, in his argument to the jury, may call their attention to the effect that if their verdict were life imprisonment rather than death, the defendant would be imprisoned for only a few years, and we said in the Coe
State v. Jordan 320 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1958
State v. Jordan 320 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1958
Our decision reversing the first conviction, because of improper remarks of the county attorney, is reported in , .
State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
State v. Colvin 307 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1957