Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kruchten, 417 P.2d 510.

155 citing documents.

State v. Ebert 519 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1974
State v. Cuzick, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Swingle 514 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1973
Criticized State v. Swingle 514 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1973
State v. Davis 514 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
State v. Davis 514 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
But an actual conflict must, in fact, have existed or been inherent in the facts of the case from which the possibility of prejudice flowed.”
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
State v. Savoy 514 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1973
State v. Savoy 514 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
1386 , 18 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969); , cert.
State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cox 506 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1973
State v. Cox 506 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1973
State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
Baker v. Wainwright, 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1970); , , cert.
State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
Baker v. Wainwright 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1970); , cert.
State v. Carr 495 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1972
State v. Carr 495 P.2d 134 Ariz. 1972
In Belcher, though, this Court, , , said: “ * * * where a conflict of interest exists in representation of codefendants by the same counsel, prejudice will be presumed: “ ‘Plainly, where a lawyer undertakes to represent two or more co-defendants and an actual conflict of interest exists, courts will not weigh the quantity of prejudice w
State v. Masters 494 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
State v. Masters 494 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
Reversible error will be presumed.”
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
But an actual conflict must, in fact, have existed or been inherent in the facts of the case *151 from which the possibility of prejudice flowed.” , cert.
State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thornton 493 P.2d 902 Ariz. 1972
The well established standard to determine ineffective counsel is that the attorney by his actions must have made the proceedings a “farce and a mockery of justice, shocking to the conscience of the Court.” , cert.
State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
State v. McIntyre 489 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1971
State v. McIntyre 489 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1971
that an attorney may, in good faith, represent codefendants until such time as a conflict of interest arises.
State v. Burns 488 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Burns 488 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
Baker v. Wainwright, 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1970); , cert.
State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970