Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 426 P.2d 639.
- State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
- 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