Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Boozer, 291 P.2d 786.

63 citing documents.

State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶41 Finally, “‘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.’” Gonzales, 105 Ariz. at 437, 466 P.2d at 391 ( ); see also Hughes, 104 Ariz. at 538, 456 P.2d at 396 (noting no authority “for the proposition that 14 STATE v. KUMMER Decision of the Court the prosecutor should argue the defendant’s case
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Without any evidence, and Villalpando concedes that she has none, we will “assume that [a] prosecutor [is] acting in good faith.”
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Valencia 575 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Cook 564 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1977
State v. Valenzuela 559 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Valenzuela 559 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Vanderlinden, 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Houlf 557 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Houlf 557 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The established rule in Arizona is that if improper statements are made by counsel during the trial, the opposition must object so that the court may make the necessary correction by proper instruction
State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
State v. Juarez 524 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
State v. Williams, supra.
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. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
State v. Harris 481 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1971
294 P. 617 (1930); , 137 P. 550 (1913).
State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
State v. Gonzales 466 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1970
State v. Gonzales 466 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1970
: “ * * * 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.” 8
State v. White 465 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. White 465 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Stout 425 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Miranda 416 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Hernandez 391 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1964