Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY., 668 P.2d 882.

65 citing documents.

Soto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Soto v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 627
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state 515 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2022
(“[A]n accused is entitled to due process during grand jury proceedings.”); (“It is a requirement of due process that the grand jury be fair and impartial.”); Marston’s, 114 Ariz. at 268 (Gordon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[A]t least
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Hansen argued the state had not presented the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and had prevented the grand jury from acting independently.
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon blair/taveras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
A trial court is prohibited “from considering an attack on an indictment based on the nature, weight or sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury.” –43 (1983).
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trinh v. Hon garcia/state 486 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trebus, 189 Ariz. at 623, 625 (–44 (1983) (Feldman, J., specially concurring)).
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 12.9(a); Crimmins v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa County
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
Louis E Cespedes v. Hon. lee/state Ariz. 2017
B. ¶9 A prosecutor has a duty “to instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.”
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct., In & For Maricopa County, , and Korzep v. Super Ct., In & For County of Yuma
S allen/J Allen v. Hon. sanders/state of Arizona 382 P.3d 784 Ariz. 2016
S allen/J Allen v. Hon. sanders/state of Arizona 382 P.3d 784 Ariz. 2016
(holding that a trial court erred by weighing the quantity and quality of the evidence presented to the grand jury); -43 , -86 (1983) (“Those cases clearly prohibit a trial court from considering an attack on an indictment based on the nature, weight or sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury.”).
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Bashir v. Pineda 248 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bashir v. Pineda 248 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
at 624 , 944 P.2d at 1238 (quoting Crimmins v. Superior Court (Collins), , (Feldman, J., specially concurring)).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
5 the evidence underlying a grand jury indictment.” -43, -86 (1983) (a trial court is prohibited from “considering an attack on an indictment based on the nature, weight or sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury”).
Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See also Crimmins v. Superior Court (Collins), , (holding that it was the duty of the prosecutor as legal advisor to the grand jury to instruct on applicable citizen’s arrest statutes when the defendant believed he was engaging in a lawful citizen’s arrest).
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
See Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 39, 40
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(“We hold that the citizen’s arrest statutes were part of the applicable law given the facts of the case, and it was the duty of the prosecutor as legal advisor to the *426 grand jury to instruct on that law.”)
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997
Herrell v. Sargeant 944 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1997
Trebus v. Davis 944 P.2d 1235 Ariz. 1997
-44 , -87 (1983) (Feldman, J., specially concurring); see generally 38A C.J.S.
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
O'Meara v. Gottsfield 851 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
requires the use of an unbiased grand jury and a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence.”
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Groshong 852 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
O'Meara v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
O'Meara v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the court stated: The duties of fair play and impartiality imposed on those who attend and serve the grand jury are meant to ensure that the determinations made by that body are informed, objective and just.
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(an accused is entitled to the right of due process during grand jury proceedings).
State ex rel. Hastings v. Sult 781 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1989
State ex rel. Hastings v. Sult 781 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1989
The court, , concluded that an absolute prohibition on post-indictment interviews would unduly restrict a defendant’s due process right to an unbiased grand jury.
Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Escobar v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 746 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987