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. Gallagher, 396 P.2d 241.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
    For authority, , where we held inadmissible a knife and scabbards found in appellant’s car since “[n]one of these items were properly connected to the crime in question and had nothing to do with appellant’s guilt or innocence.” Id.
  • State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
    and State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Rocco 579 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Rocco 579 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    This, appellant claims, put significant pressure on the juror to find appellant guilty
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
    as authority for his position that the admission of the dagger was reversible error: Appellant asserts error in the admission and/or display to the jury of numerous items of evidence.
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 501 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Devaney 500 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Devaney 500 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 953 (1963)
  • State v. Smith 482 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Smith 482 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    See, e. g., , , , , , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. McFall 428 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. McFall 428 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    our Supreme Court stated: “In addition to the above, determination of the voluntariness of these admissions would have to include careful and systematic inquiry into the peculiar resilience to questioning of appellant in the light of both his physical and mental health.” 97 Ariz. at 7 , 396 P.2d
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Norgard 429 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    Among the Arizona authority establishing this general rule to be the law of this state are: , 181 P. 175 (1919); , , , and
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    1 , , are four decisions subsequent to Dutton which impel us to the view that under the standards established by our Supreme Court reversible error was committed in this action by the admi
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
    as authority for his position that evidence of an escape is inadmissible.
  • State v. Herman 414 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Herman 414 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    1199, 1202 , 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964).” 7, 245 (1964).
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
    1199 , 12 L. Ed.2d 246 (1964); , , all of which decisions were handed down after the trial and filing of defendant’s brief on appeal raise issues of importance to this case.
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    in which the Supreme Court of Arizona found it to be prejudicial error for a police officer to be permitted to suggest the existence of a criminal record on the part of the defendant.
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    However, closer in point is the case of State v. Gallagher (1964), , , which holds that admissions obtained after defendant has been indicted and without the presence of counsel are not admissible as a matter of law.
  • State v. Ortiz 399 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Ortiz 399 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1965
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , , , , .
  • State v. Costello 399 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Costello 399 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1965
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 953 (1963)