DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Everett v. State, 356 P.2d 394.

68 citing documents.

  • State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
    Rule 241, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Pruett 415 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Pruett 415 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1966
    An alleged denial of a speedy trial must be considered in light of the fact and circumstances of each case, , , and determined from a common sense viewpoint.
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
    As to the trial court granting a continuance, , , 395 , , that: “ ‘Continuances are, to a great extent, discretionary with the trial court, and an appellate tribunal will not review its action in this respect unless it clearly appears that the.
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Blankenship 406 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Manis 386 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Manis 386 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1963
    *30 -299, -398 and is: “The question to be ultimately determined by the jury was whether defendant reasonably believed he was in personal danger * * * and whether he used no more force than ‘necessary’ to defend himself.” , (Oct.
  • State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
    elf-defense, with reasonable belief that he was in personal danger, and whether the defendant used no more force than necessary to defend himself from actual or apparent danger.” Defendant contends that the italicized part of the instruction applies an “objective” , 211 P. 866 , , because defendant’s right to defend himself is predicated upon what the jurors would have done or felt it was necessary to do’in self-defense.
  • State v. Beatty 382 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Beatty 382 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1963
    We have said with regard to a trial court’s granting continuance: “Continuances are, to a great extent, discretionary with the trial court, and an appellate tribunal will not review its action in this respect unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused.”
  • State v. Fields 373 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Fields 373 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1962
    This court has most recently considered the question of self-defense in a
  • State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961