DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Weber v. Board of Supervisors, 652 P.2d 1380.

15 citing documents.

  • In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (in the context of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.4(c), the court held that “unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, then there is no error”); , (stating the general rule that “a convic
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992); , 150 n. 11, , 1076 n. 11 (1989)
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    § 13-709(B) “requires crediting time served against the minimum 25 year portion of the sentence of life imprisonment in the same manner as against any other determinate period of imprisonment.”
  • State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
    (“harmless error doctrine concerns errors of fundamental or constitutional nature”).
  • State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
    We have defined fundamental error in the context of jury instructions as “such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Nelson 755 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
    When you go to the jury room you will choose a foreman who will be in charge during your deliberations and who will sign any verdict.”
  • State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
    (applying credit for presentence custody against the minimum 25-year portion of the sentence).
  • State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Furthermore, as noted in both State v. Watson, supra, , disagreements as to trial strategy or errors in trial tactics will not support an ineffectiveness claim, as long as the challenged conduct could have had some reasoned basis.
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Furthermore, , disagreements as to trial strategy or errors in trial tactics will not support an ineffectiveness claim, as long as the challenged conduct could have had some reasoned basis.
  • Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
  • Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982