Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hilliard, 359 P.2d 66.

60 citing documents.

State v. Alfartousi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
6 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI Decision of the Court ¶28 “A defendant is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury but only by one which is fair and impartial.” see also Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 480 (1990) (stating the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to an impartial jury but not necessarily a representative one); (recognizing a perfect jury panel “is not possible”).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law ¶24 “A defendant is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury but only by one which is fair and impartial.” (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Miguel Urrea 421 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Francisco Miguel Urrea 421 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2018
“A defendant is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury but only by one which is fair and impartial.” ¶ 40 (2007).
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
The defendant is not entitled to a particular jury, but only a fair one, , , , and unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error.
State v. Goldston 652 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1982
State v. Goldston 652 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1982
State v. Reynolds 611 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Reynolds 611 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Turrentine 592 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Turrentine 592 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ray Korte Chevrolet v. Simmons 571 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
State v. Parker 567 P.2d 319 Ariz. 1977
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Williams 526 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1974
State v. Williams 526 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1974
State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
State v. Verdugo 510 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1973
State v. Forgan 505 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Forgan 505 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
“Error lies only where the State makes insinuations [of a felony conviction] which it is not able and prepared to prove.” Here, the questions asked by the prosecutor concerning the California conviction might well have been error.
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
The granting of defendant’s request that jurors be interrogated ■ during trial as to whether they have read newspaper accounts rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, (citations omitted) Under the circumstances of this case the trial court was fully within its discretion in refusing counsel’s request.” 135
State v. Bernal 475 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Bernal 475 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
*170 ; , ; Kinsey v. State, supra; , 240 P. 863 .
State v. Abney 440 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1968
State v. Abney 440 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1968
Although we have held on various occasions that attorneys are given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury ( , ; , ; , ) nevertheless, in closing argument an attorney should never express his personal belief in the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
3 , jurors, , 247 P. 122 , or jury, , .
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 418 P.2d 594 Ariz. 1966
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
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. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
State v. Westbrook 406 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1965
State v. Allen 400 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Allen 400 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
aps the term “accomplished thief” should not have been used, still in view of the context in which it was used, this court feels that it was not prejudicial error, especially in view of the wide latitude given to attorneys in their arguments, particularly in discussing the evidence, the possible facts the jury may find, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, , and also in view of the fact that the jury was specifically told by the prosecuting attorney at the start of his argu
State v. Hernandez 391 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1964
State v. Hernandez 391 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1964
State v. Milton, 85 Ariz. *32 69, ; , .
State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964
State v. Sorrell 388 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1964
at 133 , at 68 (1961) “However, the trial court has the right to use its discretion on a challenge for cause, and so long as there has been no abuse of that discretion it will not be disturbed on appeal.” Appellant contends it was improper for the trial court to have admitted as evidence Lipnick’s statem