Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garaygordobil, 359 P.2d 753.

30 citing documents.

Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. MacDonald, supra; State v. Johnson, supra
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
State v. Holmes 520 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1974
State v. Holmes 520 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1974
a somewhat similar question was asked, but there the court required the witness to answer the question.
State v. Bush 512 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1973
State v. Bush 512 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1973
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
Our conclusion here should be distinguished from a situation wherein no defenses or strategy had been presented by either co-defendant which would indicate a conflict of interest: “The mere possibility of a future conflict of interests developing by an attorney representing different interests is not sufficient to disqualify him.” , , and Williams v. State (Fla.
State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
“A I don’t recall.” The defendant contends that the prosecuting attorney’s cross-examination constituted improper comment on defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent, , , upon his detention at the scene, Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct.
Corbin v. Broadman 433 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Corbin v. Broadman 433 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
A fine example of what an attorney should do when faced with a conflict of"
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Taylor 407 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
However, , “[t]he mere possibility of a future conflict of interest developing by an attorney representing different interests is not sufficient to disqualify him.” A fair trial, as well as the ethics of the profession, could, under some circumstances, demand a case be reversed where such a conflict of int
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
we said: “The defendant next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of misconduct and prejudice of juror Powell.
State v. Johnson 383 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1963
State v. Johnson 383 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1963
fully answer and are determinativ'e of the question: “The defendant’s failure to take the stand in the' preliminary examination was in no way an admission of guilt.
State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
State v. Izzo 383 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1963
Commonwealth v. Burke, 339 Mass. 521 , 159 N.E.2d 856 , 77 A.L.R.2d 451 ; , .
State v. White 376 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1962
State v. White 376 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1962
State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
State v. Holliday 375 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1962
S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24, 17 A.R.S., 2