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. Neil, 428 P.2d 676.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Nonetheless, “arguments to the jury ‘must be based on facts which the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not and could not be received in evidence.’” ( ).
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    See, , (holding that it was reversible error to imply that the defendant had a long criminal record when she in fact did not); , (holding that it was reversible error to comment on defendant’s record when no evidence of prior convictions had been admitted); , (holding that it was error to call defendant an “addict” where there was no competent evidence
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Nevertheless, arguments to the jury “must be based on facts which the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not and could not be received in evidence.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
    We do not and cannot condone the use of such an avenue of improper argument to secure the conviction of one charged with a crime for it does not comport with the spirit of fairness which is one of the most basic tenents of the administration of criminal law.”
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Price 526 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Price 526 P.2d 736 Ariz. 1974
    It is the contention of ■ the defendant that in his closing argument the *201 County Attorney referred to matters not in evidence and it is true that we have stated: “But, we have also made it quite clear that the arguments must be based on facts which the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not or could not be received in evidence.”
  • State v. Dutton 478 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Dutton 478 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Jordan 462 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Jordan 462 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
    Argument must not be based on “ * * * extraneous matters that were not or could not be received in evidence.”
  • State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hannon 451 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
    Rule 271, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., reads as follows: “It shall be the duty of the court to control all proceedings during the trial, and to limit the introduction of evidence and the argument of counsel to relevant and material matters, for the purpose of expeditious and effective ascertainment of the entire truth regarding the matters involved.” , we said: “This Court has often noted that attorneys must be given wide latitude in their arguments to the jury.