Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

Davis v. Winkler 793 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
however, “the concept of federalism assumes the power, and duty, of independence in interpreting our own organic law.
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 267-68 , 689 P.2d at 526-27 ; , , 272 (1984) (double jeopardy clause required dismissal of charges for knowing and intentional prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
art. 2, § 8); , (double jeopardy, Ariz.Const.
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
State v. Schroepfer 416 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Shih Ching Lin 787 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Hanger 706 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Winter 706 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Winter 706 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
3 , does state in dicta that the “best procedure” is to charge a defendant under all applicable subsections, the supreme court suggested this as an ideal, not as a constitutional minimum.
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Freader 696 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Freader 696 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
Hardwick v. Doolittle, 558 F.2d *486 292, 301 (5th Cir.1977); Cherry v. State, 414 N.E.2d 301, 305-06 (Ind.1981).
State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
A NO. The defendant claims his attorney should have asked for a mistrial or to have the question stricken from the record, , as standing for the proposition that prosecutorial misconduct may provoke a mistrial.
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
With all deference, therefore, we cannot and should not follow federal precedent blindly.”