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. Pierson, 425 P.2d 115.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
    United States v. Bonilla, 615 F.2d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir. 1980); , State v. Crank, 13 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
    State v. Crank, 13 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
    We have stated: “ * * * the Fifth Amendment is violated only if the statements will call the jury’s attention to the fact that defendant has not testified in his own behalf, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Karstetter 521 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1974
    in which the prosecutor stated: “ ‘The only man in the world besides the defendant that can testify as to whether he was there or not ...
  • State v. Pierson 489 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Pierson 489 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Crank 480 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Crank 480 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Hunt 471 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    While ordinarily no unfavorable inference may be drawn by reason of the defendant’s failure to testify, , had the defendant’s flight, or attempt to avoid prosecution, or to avoid the process of the court been injected into the case, the jury would have been permitted to draw an inference of guilt from that fact.
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
    However, , , (1967), “not every statement directed at the accused’s evidence, or lack of it, violates his constitutional rights.” This court in Pierson went on to point out ' that under federal cases “the Fifth Amendment is violated only if the statements will call the jury’s attention to the fact that def
  • State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wright 427 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967