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. Dowthard, 373 P.2d 357.

83 citing documents.

  • State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    The minute entry judgment of guilt being controlling, , State v. Chance, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hess 436 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hess 436 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Boies v. Anderson 435 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    dgment or order in a habeas corpus proceeding must be reduced to writing, signed by a judge and filed in accordance with Civil Rules 54(a) and 58(a), 16 A.R.S., before it is final and effective for purposes of appeal as in any civil proceeding, or whether the special nature of habeas corpus entitles such a proceeding to be treated as a
  • State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Shaw 429 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Shaw 429 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
    affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. White 426 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Chance 417 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Chance 417 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Arriola 409 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Arriola 409 P.2d 37 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
    we said: "This Court has repeatedly held that attorneys are given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury.
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
    It falls clearly within the statement by the county attorney in State v. Dowthard, 92 Ariz; 44, — in .which case' at the close of the argument counsel-for defendant-approached the bench •and requested the right to- move for -mistrial on the basis of the county attorney’s “statement in his closing argument to the jury wherein, in substance, he stated that if the jury desired they would have the right to turn the
  • State v. Birchfield 404 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Birchfield 404 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    State v. Dowthard (1962), , ; State v. Adams (1965), 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    affirmed 356 U.S. 390 , 78 S.Ct.
  • State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Woolery 378 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1963