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. Bradley, 433 P.2d 273.

71 citing documents.

  • State v. Davis 480 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1971
    This is true whether it is in reference to an initial sanity hearing or a subsequent hearing after it has been reported that the defendant is competent to stand trial.”
  • State v. Blevins 476 P.2d 860 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Blevins 476 P.2d 860 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Blazak 462 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Blazak 462 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Malumphy 461 P.2d 677 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Evans 454 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Evans 454 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1969
    If the officer so reports, the court shall proceed with the trial * * , the issue of the necessity of a second competency hearing was squarely before this Court.
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Flores 454 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    If, on the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, it would be your duty to accept the reasonable interpretation and to reject the unreasonable.” (Rule 26, revised, CALJIC) , as the basis for his position.
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Miller 452 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
    In harmony with the decision above cited, it appears to be a reasonable conclusion that the court did not err in refusing the proffered instruction.” (Italics in original) , , and State v. Simpier, 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Zappia 448 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
    If defendant is then committed to an institution in accordance with the rule, and if thereafter the court finds that he is able to understand the nature of the charges against him and to assist in his defense ( , ), defendant would then have the opportunity of presenting the question of whether the preliminary hearing met the requirements of due process.
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    For what constitutes a timely request for a , , filed 9 November 1967.