Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
¶32 Martinez also argues that Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, mandates reversal and bars retrial in this case.
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
n.7, n.7 (1984) (noting that repetition of questions to which objection has been sustained is misconduct); In re Gustafson, 650 F.2d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that attorney’s disregard of court’s
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Misconduct is defined as conduct that “is not merely 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.” -09 , -72 (1984); , -27 (App.2007).
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Prosecutorial misconduct “is not merely 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.” -09, -72 (1984) (footnote omitted).
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
5 ¶ 11 Even so, a prosecutor’s duty to avoid a conflict of interest is prime because his paramount duty is to the principle of “fairness.” In other words, his interest is not so much to prevail as to ensure that “justice shall be done.” Pool v. Superior Court (State), , (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct.
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Evidence may be admitted when “evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.”
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
-09 , -72 (1984) (holding that “jeopardy attaches under art. 2, § 10 of the Arizona Constitution when a mistrial is granted” and other specified conditions are met); ¶ 7 , (extending Pool to cases in which the mistrial moti
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
This court affirmed that holding after observing that double jeopardy bars retrial when there is “intentional prosecutorial misconduct aimed at preventing an acquittal.” State v. Jorgenson, 198 Ariz. 390, 391, ¶¶ 3-4, ( ).
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
“The prosecutor’s interest in a criminal prosecution ‘is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.’” (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)).
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ct., , , 271 (1984) (acknowledging desirability of following federal precedent when interpreting state constitutional provisions that correspond to the federal constitution in order to achieve uniformity, but stating such precedent should not be followed blindly).
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
declining in the circumstances presented to apply to the state clause the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the corresponding federal clause, ¶ 5 , suggesting, without analysis, that the protections offered by the
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
See State v. Minnitt, ___ Ariz. ___, Pool v. Superior Court (State), P.2d 261 (1984).
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 673 (1982) (“one of the principal threads making up the protection embodied in the double jeopardy clause is the right of the defendant to have his trial completed before the first jury empaneled to try him”)
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct ¶ 5 Appellant contends the trial court should have dismissed the case with prejudice due to the prosecutor’s intentional misconduct at the first trial that ended in a mistrial
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 29 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 29 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
-09 , -72 (1984), however, our supreme court held that if prosecutorial misconduct causes a mistrial, a retrial may be barred by Arizona’s Double Jeopardy Clause, Arizona Constitution, article II, § 10, under the following circumstances: 1.
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(where party introduces “improper or irrelevant evidence or argument,” other party “may have right to retaliate ...