DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

  • State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Although Arizona courts recognize the desirability of uniform interpretation, , they have “rejected the so-called lock-step approach, which requires the state to unquestioningly adopt federal construction” of parallel state constitutional provisions.
  • Beijer v. ADAMS EX REL. COUNTY OF COCONINO 993 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Beijer v. ADAMS EX REL. COUNTY OF COCONINO 993 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT BAR A RETRIAL ¶ 16 -09 , -72 (1984), our supreme court clearly established that if a mistrial is granted as a result of conduct that the prosecutor knew or should have known would prejudice the defendant and that could not be cured short of a mistrial, the double jeopardy clause of the Arizona Constitution bars a re
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    The rule of invited error applies when a party elicits evidence or comments that “make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” , , (observing that the response must be “pertinent”).
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
    “We recognize that where 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.” , (citations omitted).
  • Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
  • Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
    We hope this opinion, , (preclusion of evidence appropriate sanction for defense counsel’s willful misconduct in failing to disclose that evidence), , (jeopardy attached and retrial barred because prosecutor engaged in intentional, egregious, and improper conduct), is one more step in informing the public and the bar that this court will not tolerate unprofessional behavior.
  • State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    Unlike the case cited by defendant, , the prosecutor here did not call defendant pejorative names, refer to matters not in evidence, suggest unfavorable matter for which no proof exists, or abuse defendant in any other way.
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
    (defendant’s double jeopardy arguments based on federal constitution; court will not separately consider state constitution); Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz.. 98, 108, (we ordinarily interpret article 2, § 10 of Arizona Constitution in conformity with United States Constitution).
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
    United States v. Johnson, 618 F.2d 60, 62 (9th Cir.1980); -04 , -67 (1984).
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Arizona’s courts ordinarily interpret this clause “in conformity to the interpretation given by the United States Supreme Court to the same clause in the federal constitution— [Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have great weight in interpreting those provisions of the state constitution which correspond to the federal provisions.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
  • Distinguished State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    “The invited error doctrine applies to situations ‘where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal’ ” , ( , ).
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
    (while we give great weight to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, “we cannot and should not follow federal precedent blindly.”).
  • State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
    8 See Pool v. Superior *182 Court
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    our supreme court described the prosecutorial duties in these terms: Thus, to paraphrase the words of Justice Sutherland, the prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary litigant; he is a representative of a government whose obligation to govern fairly is as important as its ob
  • State v. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Davis v. Winkler 793 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990