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. Cousins, 397 P.2d 217.

29 citing documents.

  • Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
  • Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
    Thus, P.2d 217 (1964), this court first addressed the question whether an offense for which no common law antecedent existed might nevertheless be jury-eligible as a result of the severity of the penalty attached to that offense.
  • Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
  • Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
    -08 , Davis, 28 Ariz. at 313 , 236 P. at 716 ; -87 , 226 P. 549, 549-50 (1924).
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 618 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1980
  • State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 618 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1980
    In Clawans, supra, , the changing attitudes from generation to generation were considered in determining that a penalty once regarded as mild, such as the lash and stocks, may come to be viewed as harsh.
  • Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
  • Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
    Rothweiler v. Superior Court, supra; State v. Superior Court, supra.
  • City of Phoenix v. Jones 541 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • City of Phoenix v. Jones 541 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    223 (1888); P.2d 217 (1964).
  • Goldman v. Kautz 531 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
  • Goldman v. Kautz 531 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Stewart 516 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Stewart 516 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • City Court of City of Tucson v. Lee 494 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • City Court of City of Tucson v. Lee 494 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    held that violation of a city ordinance proscribing drunk and disorderly conduct was not triable by jury at common law and therefore not triable by jury in the city court.
  • St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima County 454 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    cerned with a trial in the superior court, and not in an inferior court, as here, it can be argued that its holding is pertinent in view of the categorical pronouncement of our Supreme Court that: “ * * * where a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial in an inferior court, such as the City Court in this case, he is *524 not entitled to a jury on appeal in the superior court.”
  • Porter v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Yavapai 448 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1968
  • Porter v. Superior Court in and for Co. of Yavapai 448 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1968
    at page 109, , at page 219 (1964): “We therefore state that where a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial in an inferior court, such as the City Court in this case, he is not entitled to a jury on appeal in the superior court.” Respondent argues by analogy that if the right to a jury cannot be creat
  • O'NEILL v. Mangum 445 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1968
  • O'NEILL v. Mangum 445 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1968
    In Rothweiler v. Superior Court, supra, we said: “ * * * In determining whether a crime is a petty offense that constitutionally may be tried without a jury the severity of the penalty inflictable, as well as the moral quality of the act and its relation to common law crimes, must be considered.” p. 42, 410 P.2d p. 483 , , that at common law the crime of drunk and disorderly was not triable by a jury, and we there found that one charged with “drunk and disorderly” under municipal code was not en
  • Morgan v. Hays 426 P.2d 647 Ariz. 1967
  • Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 410 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1966
  • Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 410 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1966
    141 P. 841 - (1914), we stated that the right of a jury trial as declared by our Constitution applied to such right as “existed when the Constitution was adopted.” In regard to Art. 2, § 23 of the Arizona Constitution, , that: “The provision of the Constitution quoted [Art. 2, § 23] does not give the right to a trial by jury, but its purpose is to guarantee the preservation of the right.
  • Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    226 P. 549 [1924] ; , 236 P. 715 [1925]; , [1964], Brown v. Greer, supra, stated that § 1389 of the 1901 Code, providing for jury trial of all cases both at law and equity, was perpetuated by the Constitution.