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. Owen, 394 P.2d 206.

110 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
    (noting immediately before announcing the rule that this rule arose "[a]fter the opinion" in Jackson ); Simoneau , 98 Ariz. at 6 , (citing Jackson in the same paragraph as the rule and also citing State v. Owen , , the first case in which we interpreted Jackson ).
  • State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Distinguished State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    -32 , -22 , -21 (1965); -77
  • State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
    At a “voluntariness hearing”, , the judge found defendant’s statement to be voluntary.
  • State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
    We have made it clear that once raised, the court must make a separate determination of voluntariness of a statement of the defendant, , and: *461 “* * * the trial court must make a specific determination of voluntariness before the statements may be considered by the jury.
  • State v. Tom 613 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Tom 613 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), , but our decision does not rest on that procedural ground.
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
    He may not submit it to the jury merely upon a finding that there is a conflict in the evidence, without himself first definitely resolving the conflict.”
  • Ryan v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 590 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1979
  • Ryan v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 590 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964)
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
    A , and testimony and oral argument were heard by the trial court.
  • State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
    Jackson also applies to admissions against interest and exculpatory statements
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964)
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 1 A.L. R.3d 1205 (1964); , three police officers, the deputy county attorney who conducted the taped interview, four M.D.s, two of whom were psychiatrists, and Cynthia Denny testified.
  • State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
    Evidence tending to contradict the voluntary nature of the statement or confession may be admitted, and the jury may, as under the Massachusetts rule, then in effect disagree with the judge, and reject the confession.”
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
  • 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. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    The Arizona Su *205 -277 , held: “The trial judge’s statement that it was for the jury to determine the question of voluntariness of a statement or confession, does not correctly state the law as enunciated in Jackson.
  • 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. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
    The defendant contends and we agree that this finding by the court did not constitute a
  • State v. Patterson 458 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Patterson 458 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1969
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 1 A.L.R.3rd 1205 , , held a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress his confession.
  • State v. Vaughn 450 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Vaughn 450 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1969
    where we said that exculpatory statements are to be given the same treatment as confessions in regard to the determination of their voluntariness, , where we said that regardless of whether the defendant requests it the court must instruct
  • State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. McWilliams 445 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McWilliams 445 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    n, will assist the Court in a proper decision in this case.” The appellant filed a supplemental brief as well as a
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    2d 908 , 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 ; , and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966).
  • State v. Armstrong 440 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Armstrong 440 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1968