Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blankenship, 406 P.2d 729.

62 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See, (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion .
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (“[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)).
  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See, (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion .
  • State v. Serna 807 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Serna 807 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
    950 , 35 L.Ed.2d 261 (1973)
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Morrow 528 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Morrow 528 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Puffer 516 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Puffer 516 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lockett 491 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    .” Rule 311 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Moreno 483 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1971
    “Denial of a Motion for a New Trial will not be grounds for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that the court abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily.”
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Hughes 477 P.2d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hughes 477 P.2d 265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    Bullock v. Geyer, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    Granting or denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence is discretionary with the trial judge, , and such a motion will not be granted when the newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative, impeaching, contradictory, or probably would not have changed the verdict or findings of the court.
  • State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
    rt to be as follows: “On an appeal from an order denying a new trial to the defendant in a criminal case, the matter is largely one of discretion with the trial court, and the denial will not be grounds for reversal unless it appears affirmatively that the court abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily.” at 471 , at 445 (1969)
  • State v. McAvaney 472 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McAvaney 472 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Jeffrey 463 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Jeffrey 463 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
    I didn’t know he would put that on there.” As has been often repeated by this Court: “On an appeal from an order denying a new trial to the defendant in a criminal case, the matter is largely one of discretion with the trial court, and the denial will not be grounds for reversal unless it appears affirmatively that the court abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily.” , .
  • State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Urry 450 P.2d 1018 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Urry 450 P.2d 1018 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969