Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 426 P.2d 639.

97 citing documents.

State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
State v. Johnson 570 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Johnson 570 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Dugan 555 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1976
State v. Dugan 555 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1976
State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the defendant vociferously demanded the right to testify, and the record showed disagreement between defendant and his attorney on whether he should do so.
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
State v. Reese 527 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
State v. DeLuna 520 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1974
State v. DeLuna 520 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1974
Otherwise the constitutional right to defend oneself if he intelligently and competently chooses would be illusory.”
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
State v. Wilcynski 517 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1974
State v. Wilcynski 517 P.2d 1254 Ariz. 1974
we said insanity will be deemed to be an issue once a defendant introduces sufficient evidence to raise a doubt as to his sanity under the rule of M’Naghten’s case.
State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
State v. Begay 516 P.2d 573 Ariz. 1973
State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
State v. Scott 505 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Scott 505 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
For a complete analysis of this Sixth Amendment right to the appointment of counsel, , , Casenote, 8 Ariz.L.Rev., 347, (No. 2 Spring 1967).
State v. Mytych 194 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1972
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
we stated that where the record “clearly” shows that defendant and his attorney were in disagreement as to the attorney’s determination to keep defendant off the stand, and where the record also disclosed no evidence of the defendant’s later acquiescence not to take the stand, we would consider
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
State v. Daniels 478 P.2d 522 Ariz. 1970
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Todd v. Melcher 462 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Blazak 462 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1969
State v. Blazak 462 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Shanahan 457 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Thorne 453 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thorne 453 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1969
wherein we held: “Article 2, Sec.
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Prewitt 452 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
State v. Griffin, supra; State v. Gilmore, 242 Or.
State v. Nicastro 439 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1968
State v. Nicastro 439 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1968
206 , directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine, inter alia, the following proposition: “Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.” , which involved the question of waiver by the defendant of his right to have counsel assist him at trial, we stated: “The test to be applied
State v. Cano 436 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1968
State v. Cano 436 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1968
State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967
State v. Ganster 433 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1967