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. Costello, 399 P.2d 119.

45 citing documents.

  • 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. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
  • Overruled State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
    and that a statement that the “objection is overruled” is insufficient
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
    (after finding a “prima facie” showing of voluntariness, “I am not the one who determines whether it was voluntary”); , (“The defense motion to suppress the statements of the defendant is denied.
  • 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. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964)
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
    In 1965, , , we held that at the conclusion of a voluntariness hearing in the absence of the jury, the trial judge’s statement that the State had made a “prima facie” showing of voluntariness was error under the rule of Jackson v. Denno, and that only if the judge makes “a definite determination that it was volunt
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • 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. LaFleur 499 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. LaFleur 499 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
    Only if he makes a definite determination it was voluntary may he admit it for consideration by the jury.”
  • 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. Schindorff 484 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Schindorff 484 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
    So on the basis of this ruling, counsel having mentioned it in opening argument, it is now moot.” Defendant contends that the court did not make a , .
  • State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
  • 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. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Only if he makes a definite determination it was voluntary may he admit it for consideration by the jury.”
  • State v. Hunter 423 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Hunter 423 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    A hearing was held out of the presence of the jury and at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge entered a
  • State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
    From the record nothing appears to indicate that the statement was other than voluntary, and judged in the light of Jackson v. Denno, supra, , , we hold that the demands of due process were met.
  • 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 the hearing on voluntariness.” There is nothing in the transcript of the hearing held out of the presence of the jury to indicate that the trial court made such a “definite determination as to voluntariness.”.
  • State v. Tannahill 411 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Tannahill 411 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1966
  • 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. 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. Ortiz 399 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Ortiz 399 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1965