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. Lovell, 399 P.2d 674.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
    We have stated previously that the peremptory challenge is “an arbitrary and capricious species of challenge to a certain number of jurors without showing bias or prejudice, or any cause.” , 677 (1965).
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    State v. Thompson, supra ; Rule 18.5 g, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
    .” 101 Ariz. at 459 , 420 P.2d at 934 .
  • State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
    we held that ample opportunity was given to counsel where the court limited the examination of individual jurors to those circumstances where a juror answered a general question affirmatively.
  • State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
    1938 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1966)
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    No continuance shall be allowed because of the failure to endorse such names thereon unless such application was made at the earliest opportunity and then only if a continuance is necessary in the interest of justice.” (Emphasis supplied) The primary purpose of this rule is to “enable an accused to prepare adequately and advisedly for his defense.” , State v. King.
  • State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
    we stated: “A peremptory challenge is an arbitrary and capricious species of challenge to a certain number of jurors without showing bias or prejudice, or any cause.
  • State v. Brooks 445 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Brooks 445 P.2d 831 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Gaines 435 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Gaines 435 P.2d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    *563 * * * We believe that it was an abuse of legal discretion for the trial court to refuse a continuance.”
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Molina 428 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Denton 420 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    It has likewise been held that any legal right which the defendant had to challenge the propriety of the testimony of such a witness [is] waived by a defendant when no continuance was requested.”
  • State v. Musgrove 412 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Musgrove 412 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965