Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Goodyear, 404 P.2d 397.

57 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
-25 (1965) (when asked whether she would apply the presumption of innocence by voting for acquittal if the case was submitted without evidence, a juror’s answer that she “d[id]n’t think [she] could make up [her] mind” because she “d[id]n’t know enough” suggested she was “willing to listen to the evidence before ma
State of Arizona v. Jose Luis Jimenez 534 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Jose Luis Jimenez 534 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Rather, the statement “was the answer of a juror who was willing to listen to the evidence before making up h[is] mind.” -25 (1965) (after counsel inquired whether juror presumed defendant innocent as baseline, response that juror could not 6 STATE v. JIMENEZ Opinion of the Court “make up [her] mind right now” because she did “not know
State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
404 * rev’d on other grounds
State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
State v. Coward 496 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1972
-238 , -95 (1967); -317 , -406 (1965), reversed on other grounds, , -60 , cert.
State v. Jackson 489 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
State v. Jackson 489 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Williams 485 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
State v. Betancourt 484 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1971
State v. Betancourt 484 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1971
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
-406 , reversed on other grounds, , , where we said: “Defendant Goodyear assigns as error the introduction of photographs and other exhibits which he states are of a gruesome nature, and were introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury and pre
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
State v. Salerno 457 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1969
reversed on rehearing, , we upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant separate trials where confessions were admitted into evidence.
State v. Lombardo 457 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1969
State v. Lombardo 457 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
In Sullivan v. State, supra, we set forth the test used in determining whether prosecutor’s remarks are so objectionable as to cause reversal: “* -* * Do the remarks call to the attention of the jurors matters which they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict * * , ; , .
State v. Hunt 447 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Copley, supra; , , rehearing , ; , , cert.
State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
Robles v. United States, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 401 , cert.
State v. Rocha 424 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Rocha 424 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Zier v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc. 420 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Zier v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc. 420 P.2d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
McCormick on Evidence, § 29.
State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
State v. Webb 419 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1966
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. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
rev’d on other grounds, , .
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
rev’d on rehearing, , we specifically held on rehearing that a “definite determination as to voluntariness is necessary,” and, , , that such a determination must be made at “the conclusion of t
State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965