Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jordan, 320 P.2d 446.

38 citing documents.

State v. Md Helicopters Inc Ariz. 2020
State v. Md Helicopters Inc Ariz. 2020
The plain meaning of “reciprocal” does not itself direct the form of “law.” New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 4 (1959), relied on by MDHI, did not conclude otherwise by describing the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings as operative between states that had enacted the same or similar legislation.
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
The operation of the Uniform Act depends upon the principles of comity, and it has no efficacy except through the adoption of the same act by another state.” , (quoting State v. Blount, 200 Or.
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Brady 594 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1978
State v. Brady 594 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
See United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1970)
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
To justify an exclusion, coercion or involuntariness must first be shown.”
State v. Ramos 463 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Ramos 463 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
§ 13-1418 which mandates taking an arrestee before a magistrate without “unnecessary delay” , our Supreme Court held that a 24-hour delay was not so prejudicial as to render any statements made during that time ex-cludable.
State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
Under Rule 256, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., a transcript of testimony of a dead or absent witness made at a prior trial is admissible “in any subsequent trial or proceeding had in the same action or proceeding subject only to the same objections that might be made if the witness were testifying in open court.” For cases interpreting the use of this rule, see: , ; , .
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the- trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * *.’ , ; , 320 P.2d *322 446, 450.” 89 Ariz. at 164, 359 P.2d at 755 .
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State, v. Jordan, , , cert.
State v. Sheffield 396 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1964
State v. Sheffield 396 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1964
State v. Maldonado 373 P.2d 583 Ariz. 1962
State v. Maldonado 373 P.2d 583 Ariz. 1962
State v. Head 371 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1962
State v. Head 371 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1962
Defendant cites State v. Jordan, 83 Ariz, 248, , certiorari denied 357 *251 U.S. 922, 78 S.Ct.
State v. Garaygordobil 359 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1961
State v. Garaygordobil 359 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1961
And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * , ; , .
State v. Hudson 358 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1960
State v. Hudson 358 P.2d 332 Ariz. 1960
certiorari denied 357 U.S. 922 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. MacE 340 P.2d 994 Ariz. 1959
State v. MacE 340 P.2d 994 Ariz. 1959
certiorari denied 357 U.S. 922 , 78 S.Ct.