DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite LaBarr v. Tombstone Territorial Mint, 582 P.2d 639.

14 citing documents.

  • State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
    ¶ 13 (propriety depends on what jury would naturally perceive); State v. Still , , 551, , 641 (1978) (reversing conviction based on what reasonable jury would conclude from prosecutor's comment and gesture).
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (finding a constitutional violation when the jury would necessarily conclude that the defendant “was the only person who could possibly contradict or explain the State’s evidence” and the 5 STATE v. RAMOS Op
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    The State may comment that facts in the case are uneontradicted unless the defendant is or appears to be “the only one who could explain or contradict the evidence offered by the state.”
  • State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Nevertheless, we addressed the remaining issues so they would not arise at retrial, and stated: Just as it is generally impermissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, , so it is generally impermissible to use a defendant’s invocation of his Fourth Amendment protections against him, United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351 (9th Cir.1978).
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Just as it is generally impermissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, , so is it generally impermissible to use a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment protections against him, United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351 (9th Cir.1978).
  • State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    State v. Fuller, supra; United States v. Soulard, supra
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Covington 666 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the appellants argue that since they were the only persons in the bathroom with the victim, they were the only persons who could have testified that any sexual contacts were consensual and therefor the prosecutor’s comments called the fact that neither appellant testified to the jury’s attention.
  • Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Estoppel is not available as a usury defense when both the borrower and the lender know at the time of the loan transaction that it is usurious, , however, the LaBarr opinion acknowledged that most jurisdictions allow estoppel to be asserted against a claim of usury when the lender is innocent and the borrower’s conduct has been fraudulent or deceptive and of such a nature as to satisfy the normal requirements for the assertion of an estoppel defense.
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978