Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Burruell, 401 P.2d 733.

35 citing documents.

State v. McQueen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“The purpose of an opening statement is to advise the jury of the facts relied upon and of the questions and issues involved, which the jury will have to determine, and to give them a general picture of the facts and the situations, so that they will be able to understand the evidence.” (citation omitted).
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 18 Opening statements “give [the jurors] a general picture of the facts and the situations, so that they will be able to understand the evidence.” , -36 (1965), quoting State v. Erwin, 101 Utah 365
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
“[T]he purpose of an opening statement is to advise the jury of facts upon which the [defendant] would rely in his defense” and to give the jurors “a general picture of the facts and the situations, so that they will be able to understand the evidence.” 42, 737 (1965).
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- 41, (“The extent to which counsel can go in opening statement is within the discretion of the court.”).
State v. Mayorquin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mayorquin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(explaining that “considerable latitude” should be given to a prosecutor in opening statements).
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Abbey 634 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Evans v. Abbey 634 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
State v. Allen, 27 Ariz.App.
Adamson v. Superior Court of Arizona 611 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1980
Adamson v. Superior Court of Arizona 611 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bowie 580 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
noted that to proceed to the additional phase of an opening statement was such a sufficient commencement of the proceeding as to constitute jeopardy We find no difficulty, however, in holding that something more than empanelment and the swearing of a jury must be done to constitute jeopardy to th
State v. Reynolds 466 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Reynolds 466 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
The State, while admitting that if the motion for mistrial was improperly granted the conviction cannot stand on the basis of double jeopardy, , contends that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion of the State for a mistrial.
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Veres 436 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” The Arizona Supreme Court has several times considered the issue of double jeopardy, three of the cases being: , , and Dowthard.
State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Mangrum 403 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1965
State v. Mangrum 403 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1965
State v. Little, supra; State v. Torres (No. 1304), , State v. Burruell (No. 1494)
State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965