Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Shaw, 378 P.2d 487.

31 citing documents.

Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, , 53 & n. 2, , 495-96 & n. 2 (1963) (“earliest reasonable opportunity” and “no unreasonable length of time ...
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(en banc) (footnote omitted); , (“Neither [the petitioner] nor any person under the age of eighteen may be prosecuted criminally unless, after hearing, the juvenile court transfers the matter to the adult side of the la
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 89248-01 764 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 89248-01 764 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The court reasoned as follows: , we held that only when it has been determined that the particular individual is one who will not benefit from special treatment, will that individual be remanded to be tried as an adult.
State v. Berlat 666 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Berlat 666 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
the supreme court recognized the need for special treatment of a juvenile when confronted by the police and it interpreted A.R.S.
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
We have held that the “absolute right to cross-examine ‘within the proper bounds’ does not license the defendant for a fishing expedition into completely irrelevant matter.”
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
by stating: “An absolute right to cross-examine ‘within the proper bounds’ does not license the defendant for a fishing expedition into completely irrelevant matter.” Dorsey did not testify in this case.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action J-72773S 527 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action J-72773S 527 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The extra-judicial admissions of minors have been the subject of three Arizona Supreme Court decisions:
Coleman v. Superior Court in & for County of Pima 519 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1974
Coleman v. Superior Court in & for County of Pima 519 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1974
we held that only when it has been determined that the particular individual is one who will not benefit from special treatment, will that individual be remanded to be tried as an adult.
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 484 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Ahlstrand 179 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1970
Anonymous v. Superior Court in & for the County of Pima 457 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Anonymous v. Superior Court in & for the County of Pima 457 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Maloney 433 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1967
State v. Maloney 433 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1967
Indeed, , , (1963), we recognized the significance of the problems that could arise in this area when we quoted a recognized authority in this field.
State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lopez 393 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1964
State v. Lopez 393 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1964
87 A.L.R.2d 407 , statements obtained by the persuasion of police officers before any attempt is made to notify a juvenile probation officer, pursuant to A.R.S.