Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Simoneau, 401 P.2d 404.

62 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
ounsel"); State v. Armstrong , , 281, , 308 (1968) (stating that "[i]t is the duty of a trial court to hold a hearing as to voluntariness of a statement or confession, if a question as to its voluntariness is raised-either by the attorneys, or one is presented by the evidence" (quoting State v. Goodyear , , 248, ) ); State v. Simoneau , , 7, (stating that "where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, th
State v. Snee 417 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snee 417 P.3d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at 275; (same); (“It is the duty of a trial court to hold a hearing as to voluntariness of a statement or confession, if a question as to its voluntariness is raised—either by the attorneys, or one is presented by the evidence.”) (emphasis added); -7 (1965) (explaining that although a defendant has a “constitutional right to refrain from incriminating himself under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” “where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the t
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
We have said that “[ejach case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial judge for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.”
State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Greer, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. Dykes 562 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Dykes 562 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Similarly, , the problem of a defendant’s silence was in issue.
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
Our Supreme Court has held that “each case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial judge for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.”
State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), and two Arizona cases, , and State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Jefferson 503 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
State v. Jefferson 503 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Defendant relied upon the rule derived from Griffin that the state may not comment upon extrajudicial admissions by silence which occur during the period of custody, , United States v. Arnold, 425 F.2d 204 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Nolan, 416 F.2d 588 (10th Cir. 1969), cert.
State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
In State v, Simoneau, , , we said: “Of course, where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, there is no issue of fact to be determined by the court in the absence of the jury and no need for a specific ruling.” The statements
State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
Although we agree with the result reached in the Villalobos case
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
* * * ” , , we stated: “ * * * Of course, where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, there is no issue of fact to be determined by the court in the absence of the jury and no need for a specific ruling.
State v. Armstrong 440 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1968
Followed State v. Armstrong 440 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1968
In deciding this case, , , we routinely remanded for determination by the trial judge-the voluntariness of an asserted confession: , .
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
Section 44 Udall’s Arizona Law of Evidence.
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
tended the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to these situations: “We agree and do not approve the introduction of evidence of an accused’s silence in reply to questions when he is in custody or under other circumstances where it is his constitutional right to refrain from incriminating himself under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
For this reason, the instant case shall be remanded for a voluntariness hearing in accord with the procedures set out in State v. Dodd, supra; , ; , .
State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
we have since held that each case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial court for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.
Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966