DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pearson, 402 P.2d 557.

31 citing documents.

  • State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Ketchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶20 “[A]s a general rule, a juror’s evidence will not be received to impeach a verdict.” ¶ 60 (2018) (noting a “juror’s testimony is not admissible to impeach the verdict”); (“[A] verdict may not be impeached by the affidavit of a juror who has agreed to the verdict.”).
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    of Chandler, Inc., , (superior court considered juror affidavits detailing communication with bailiff); , -60 (1965) (under common law of evidence, juror affidavits could be considered to show “misconduct of a party or a court officer” (citations omitted)).
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Riddel 817 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
    “Any other rule might require that an appellate court set aside a jury’s verdict and the judgment based on it without establishing for certain whether the incident did or did not occur * *
  • Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Compton 621 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Compton 621 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Callahan 580 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Callahan 580 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
    430 , 134 P. 1097 (1913), , is dispositive of appellant’s claim of error: “Whatever the breadth of the application of the rule as to the inadmissibility of the affidavits of jurors to establish their misconduct, it is almost universally held that affidavits of third persons as to unsworn statements of jurors tend
  • Valley National Bank of Arizona v. Haney 558 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Valley National Bank of Arizona v. Haney 558 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Board of Trustees Eloy Elementary Sch.
  • State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Clemons 521 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
    we cited the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seattle Electric Co., 75 Wash.
  • State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Urias 446 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    It is true that our Supreme Court has stated that instructing the jury that in every crime there must exist “a union or joint operation of act and intent” satisfied the requirement of knowledge of possession, , but we do not believe that was specifically indicated here and the portion of the instruction which stated “[ijntent may be inferred from the defendant’s voluntary commission of an act forbidden by law, and it is not necessary to establish that the defendant knew his act was a violation o
  • State v. Lindsay 428 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Lindsay 428 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Dodd v. United States, 321 F.2d 240 (9 Cir., 1963)
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Ballesteros 413 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Moraga 403 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Moraga 403 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1965