Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Crose, 357 P.2d 136.

43 citing documents.

State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Knapp v. Hardy 523 P.2d 1308 Ariz. 1974
Knapp v. Hardy 523 P.2d 1308 Ariz. 1974
it was *113 held that an indigent defendant who had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was not entitled to have medical experts appointed at State expense to assist him in his defense.
State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
similar testimony was introduced at trial and the issue of insanity submitted to the jury.
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
* * * ” *500 We held, , : “Whenever the mental condition of a defendant is in issue, two basic questions are presented.
State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
137: ‘We know of nothing, however, either by constitution or by statute, requiring the state at its own expense to make available to the defendant, in addition to counsel, the full paraphernalia of defense.’ It may be argued that there is an advantage in having the Public Defender as a legal repr
State v. Reams 455 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1969
State v. Reams 455 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1969
137: “We know of nothing, however, either by constitution or by statute, requiring the state at its own expense to make available to the defendant, in addition to counsel, the full paraphernalia of defense.” It may be argued that there is an advantage in having the Public Defender as a legal repr
State v. Thomas 452 P.2d 512 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 452 P.2d 512 Ariz. 1969
it was held that an indigent defendant who had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was not entitled to have medical experts appointed at State expense to assist him in his defense.
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
it was held that an indigent defendant who had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was not entitled to have medical experts appointed at State expense to assist him in his defense.
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
as followed in State v. Superior Court In And For County Of Pima, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
it was held that an indigent defendant who had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was not entitled to have medical experts appointed at State expense to assist him in his defense.
San Miguel v. McCarthy 446 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
San Miguel v. McCarthy 446 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
and by the Court of Appeals, Div. Two, in State v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 2 Ariz.App.
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
372 , 7 *279 L.Ed.2d 196; , ; , ; , .
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
our Supreme Court said: “Right to ‘counsel’ means, as it has always meant, the right to the services of an attorney, an officer of the court, appointed by the court to advise and assist the accused.” *472 In State v. Crose, our Supreme Court did not gainsay “ * * * that the assistance
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
1 The principal authority, apart from legislative silence, in support of the petitioners’
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
where the defendant raises the issue of his sanity, the legal question which the jury must determine is the defendant’s responsibility for his conduct at the time the crime was committed.
State v. Conrad 405 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1965
Followed State v. Conrad 405 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1965
* * * ” Moreover, , : “ * * * We are under no illusions concerning the M’Naghten Rules.
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
State v. Schantz 403 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1965
372 , 7 L.Ed.2d 196 ; , ; , ; State v. Eisenstein, 72.
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
State v. Triplett 393 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1964
State v. Triplett 393 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1964
State v. Preis 362 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1961
State v. Preis 362 P.2d 660 Ariz. 1961