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 v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
    The defendant argues that the quoted testimony also constitutes an admission, , , which, under the rule of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct.
  • State v. Wright 436 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1968
    Of those which we choose to rule upon, the question of whether the court properly submitted evidence of defendant’s inculpatory statements and acts 1 to the jury is sufficiently disposed of by our holding in State v. *57 Owen, , making it obligatory upon the trial court to make an affirmative finding of voluntariness before police-induced statements, ■confessions or acts are submitted to the jury.
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. McFall 428 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. McFall 428 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    reversed a conviction resulting from a trial at which no hearing on voluntariness in the absence of the jury was afforded the accused.
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    State v. Herman, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Powell 423 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
    if it was given and whether it was given voluntarily and if you understood the nature and consequences of such a statement before giving it to them, having had explained to you the constitutional rights that are yours, the officer having testified that he made that explanation to you at least three times.” , , this court said: “ * * * , , this court, in following the procedures outlined in Jackson v. Denno, *533 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
    this court, in following the procedures outlined in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct.
  • 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
    Prior to admitting the statement in evidence, the trial judge held a hearihg out of the jury’s
  • State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Owen 416 P.2d 589 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
    State v. Goodyear, supra; , ; State v. Costello, supra; , .
  • State v. Herman 414 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Herman 414 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    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.” 277
  • State v. Tannahill 411 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Tannahill 411 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1966
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , , , we remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the confession.
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Randolph 408 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
    1932 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 and remanded to the trial court , : "* * * If they were spontaneous exclamations and a part of the `circumstances which are the automatic and undesigned incidents of the particular *255 act in issue,' * * * then the court was correct in so ruling (admitting into evidence).
  • State v. Goff 407 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Goff 407 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1965
    It is urged that this cause should be remanded to the superior court for a hearing to determine whether appellant intelligently waived his rights both to counsel and against compulsory self-incrimination on analogous principles to Jackson v. Denno, supra, , .
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    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.” at 277 , at 208 (1964).
  • State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
    We have held that the trial judge must make “a definite determination whether the purported confession was voluntary or involuntary.”
  • State v. Shepard 405 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Shepard 405 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , as interpreted by our Supreme Court in State v. Owen (1964), , ; State v. Costello (1965), , ; State v. Ortiz (1965), , .
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
    d confession entirely unless you, yourselves, by your own weighing of all the evidence, your own judging of the credibility of the witnesses, and your own reasonable deductions,' conclude that the alleged confession not only was made, but was voluntary.” It is our opinion that the requirement of Jackson v. Denno, supra, was complied with, , .
  • State v. Simoneau 401 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Simoneau 401 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1965
    after that case was vacated and remanded in light of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct.
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Miranda 401 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1965