DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Favors, 375 P.2d 260.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (finding no error in reopening after closing arguments but prior to jury deliberations); , -61 (1962) (same).
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    In deciding whether to reopen, the trial court should consider whether “all the evidence, offered in good faith and necessary to the ends of justice has been heard.” , ( , ).
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
    P.2d 905 (1965); , P.2d 752 (1965)
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    1 , in which it was held not to be error to allow the prosecution to reopen its case to prove venue, does not turn on the law of waiver and is not in point.
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Packard v. Reidhead 528 P.2d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
    the following situation arose: “When defendant had finished his own closing argument he asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence in the trial that the crime had been committed in Pima County.
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gonzales 523 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Mendoza 511 P.2d 627 Ariz. 1973
    arties have rested to permit either party to reopen a case, for the purpose of receiving *448 further evidence * * * The exigencies of each particular case go far in controlling the discretion of the court in this regard * * * [The Court] is not * * * justified in closing the case until all the evidence, offered in good faith and necessary to the ends of justice has been heard’.”
  • State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
    282 P. 930 (1929); , ” , .
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    Trial § 104, the authors state the general rule and that in Arizona: “A motion to reopen a case for the purpose of introducing further evidence in the cause is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.”
  • State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
    State v. Hunt, supra; State v. Loftis, supra; , ; , ; , .