Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gortarez, 402 P.2d 992.

65 citing documents.

State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Gessler 690 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Petralia, supra
State v. Henderson 669 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Henderson 669 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Hagen 558 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The decision to grant or deny a Bill of Particulars rests within the sound discretion of the court, , and the exercise of that discretion is entitled to special consideration when the request is made after a preliminary hearing, State v. Sanders, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
“A. I would say three or four years.” It is contended that this line of questioning and the answers imply prior bad acts on the part of the appellant
State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
State v. Evans, 88 Ariz, 364
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Petralia 521 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
it was held that the remarks of a prosecuting attorney, even if improper, are not grounds for reversal if invited or occasioned by opposing counsel unless the prosecutor’s remarks go beyond a pertinent reply or are necessarily prejudicial.
State v. Johnson 466 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Johnson 466 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
State v. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
This Court faced a , where the witness testified that they were looking for a person trafficking in narcotics when they met the defendant in that case.
State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
6, 1969) ; , ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Von Reeden 450 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Von Reeden 450 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Sanders, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Maxwell 445 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1968
State v. Maxwell 445 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1968
State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Love 444 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Sanders 441 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Sanders 441 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Admitting the error in the Deputy County Attorney’s statement we do not feel that had it not been made the result would have been different: “Although we do not approve the statement made by the deputy county attorney, on the basis of the record and the instruction of the court to the jury, we hold the statement of the deputy county attorney was not prejudicial error.”
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
State v. Moses 420 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
State v. Moses 420 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
(No. 1440, June 10, 1965); , ; , .”
State v. Smith 420 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1966
State v. Smith 420 P.2d 278 Ariz. 1966
State v. Wise 419 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1966
State v. Wise 419 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1966
State v. Rabon 414 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
State v. Rabon 414 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1966
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , 53 S.Ct.
State v. Chambers 414 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1966