Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pool v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 261.

327 citing documents.

State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶12 Prosecutorial misconduct is “not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.”
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
1188 (1938) ("Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state."); see Pool v. Superior Court , , 108, , 271 (1984) (decisions of United States Supreme Court are binding with regard to interpretation of federal constitution; interpretation of state constitution is the province of state courts).
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ich 7 STATE v. BARNES Decision of the Court the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.” -39, ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (-09 (1984)).
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Pool v. Superior Court In & For Pima County, (giving trial court discretion to declare mistrial).
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–09 (1984) (holding prosecutorial misconduct is not merely error, negligence, or mistake, but "intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial" (emphasis added)).
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Prosecutorial misconduct is not “merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.” ¶ 36 (App. 2009) ().
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Pool v. Superior Court (State), –09 (1984).
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” Pool 8 (footnote omitted).
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶10 Prosecutorial misconduct is not “merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.” Pool v. Superior Court (Pima Cty.)
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶32 “[W]here one party injects improper or irrelevant evidence or argument, the ‘door is open,’ and the other party may have a right to retaliate by responding with comments or evidence on the same subject.”
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[W]here one party injects improper or irrelevant evidence or argument, the ‘door is open,’ and the other party may have a right to retaliate by responding with comments or evidence on the same subject.”).
Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. Mga Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]here one party injects improper or irrelevant evidence or argument, the ‘door is open,’ and the other party may have a right to retaliate by responding with comments or evidence on the same subject.”
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶26 Prosecutorial misconduct is not “merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.”
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
(noting that interpreting the state constitution is this Court’s responsibility).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
( STATE v. STEWART Decision of the Court (1973), and 1 M. Udall & J. Livermore, Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 11 at 11 (2d ed. 1982)); see also State v. Fish
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The Arizona Constitution’s double jeopardy provision bars a retrial when the mistrial is caused by “intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial or reversal.” –09 (1984).
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which 8 STATE v. JERNIGAN Decision of the Court the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” Pool v. Superior Court (State of Arizona), -09 (1984).
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prosecutorial misconduct is not “merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake or insignificant impropriety.”
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” (footnote omitted).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-09, -72 (1984) (prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.”).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
rely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.’” -39, ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (-09 (1984)).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
Additionally, “[t]rial judges have inherent power and discretion to adopt special, individualized procedures designed to promote the ends of justice in each case that comes before them.” ( (Feldman, J., specially concurring)); –04, –67 (1984) (“The trial judge is armed with both discretionary power and rules which he may use to control proceedings.”); Fed.
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arizona Rule of Evidence 611(a) empowers the court to “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” , (holding Rule 611(a) “gives the court discretion to determine and control the method of interrogation”); Padilla, 237 Ariz. at 270, ¶ 24 , 349 P.3d at 1107 (“If the State belie
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arizona Rule of Evidence 611(a) empowers the court to “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” (holding Rule 611(a) “gives the court discretion to determine and control the method of interrogation”); Padilla, 237 Ariz. at 270, ¶ 24 (“If the State believes that a personal c
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016