DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gilreath, 487 P.2d 385.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
    (holding repeated warnings unnecessary for an interrogation that lasted over seven hours at three separate locations); 319, (same regarding one twelve-hour gap and one thirty-six-hour gap between warnings).
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
    (12- and 36-hour gaps between interrogations).
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    *578 319, (12- and 36-hour gaps between interrogations).
  • State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Fagnant 860 P.2d 485 Ariz. 1993
    *220 the reason for this doctrine is clear — “without the rule, the system won’t work.” Fundamental error has been described as error that is “clear” and “egregious,” id., error that the trial court should recognize on its own initiative, , cert.
  • State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
    al. “The rule is well settled in Arizona that the failure of counsel to object constitutes a waiver, and there is no basis for appeal, (citation omitted) It is, however, subject to the exception that a court should notice defects on its own initiative which affect substantial rights, principally those affecting constitutional rights, solely to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    Furthermore, “Arizona follows the English or ‘wide open’ rule, wherein cross-examination may extend to all matters covered by direct examination, and to any other matter within the knowledge of the witness having relevancy to the issues at the trial.” , cert, denied, 406 U.S. 921 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Evans 584 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Evans 584 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    141 , 46 L.Ed.2d 104 (1975); , cert.
  • State v. Adams 555 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Adams 555 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Our Supreme Court has held that “[cjourts will not allow a party to take advantage of a wrong which he or his counsel provokes.” , cert.
  • State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
    cert, denied, 406 U.S. 921 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. McMurry 513 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Jones 509 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Jones 509 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
    State v. *123 Gilreath, , cert.
  • State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972