Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bradley, 433 P.2d 273.

71 citing documents.

Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
A. ¶24 First, for the judicial preapproval requirement.
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
GRIFFIN Opinion of the Court ¶19 The presumption of incompetency, however, arises from the defendant’s due process rights, -87 (1967), and relates to the standard the state must meet in order to ensure an incompetent person is not tried for a crime.
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(The presumption is outweighed if evidence of restoration to competency “is accepted as satisfactory .
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 941 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Superior Court 941 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
( , ) (state mental hospital records in defendant’s murder trial); , (military discharge forms were hearsay and not admissible to show mental defect); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n v. Neale, -49
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
See e. g., , ” The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
State v. Messier, supra.
State v. Pierce 577 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Pierce 577 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The convicted person must either be “insane,” , or unable to understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
State v. Tramble 568 P.2d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Tramble 568 P.2d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rule 11.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Messier 562 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Messier 562 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Cf., , Pate v. Robinson, supra; also, , , State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Ohta 562 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ohta 562 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Verdugo 541 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1975
State v. Verdugo 541 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1975
State v. White 520 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1974
State v. Hehman 520 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1974
State v. Hehman 520 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1974
State v. Blazak 516 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1973
State v. Blazak 516 P.2d 575 Ariz. 1973
State v. Williams 515 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1973
State v. Williams 515 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1973
are not in point, as they were decided before the above statute was enacted.
State v. Reynolds 511 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1973
State v. Reynolds 511 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1973
that such a specific finding was not necessary when there was no objection by counsel for the defense to the certification made by the state hospital.
State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
We analyzed the differences between § 44-1701 of the 1939 Code and Rule 250, its successor, , and held that under the old law (§ 44—1701) a second hearing was required while Rule.
State v. Nielsen 495 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1972
State v. Nielsen 495 P.2d 847 Ariz. 1972
State v. Kroupa 492 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Kroupa 492 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Ortiz 492 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ortiz 492 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1972
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
State v. Tillery 481 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1971
See: , , State *39 v. McClendon
State v. Davis 480 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1971