Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Madden, 449 P.2d 39.

54 citing documents.

State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968)
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
This rule change reversed a previous decision of this court, , which held that the trial judge, in homicide cases, had to instruct on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence even if not requested by the defendant.
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
Mull v. United States, 402 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1968).
State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976
The comment to Rule 21.3(c) provides that: “ * * * , that the court is duty bound in all homicide cases to instruct the jury on all necessarily-included offenses that the evidence will support, regardless of whether or not such instruction is requested.”
State v. Vowell 544 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Vowell 544 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
held that the court was duty bound in all homicide cases to instruct the jury (referring to the conclusion of the case) on all necessarily included offenses supported by the evidence, regardless of whether such instructions were requested.
State v. Arnold 542 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Arnold 542 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
* * * ” , However, one of the Rules which became effective on September 1, 1973 stated: “Rule 21.3 * * * “c. Waiver of Error.
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
State v. Madden, 104 Ariz. Ill
State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
State v. Vanderlinden 519 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Vanderlinden 519 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
However, for contrary expressions, see
State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
.” The appellant urges that the State’s chief investigator, Police Sergeant Durwood Weathers, who sat with the prosecutor throughout the trial at counsel table, was guilty of misconduct when he talked with several prospective iurors dunno- the impanelment of the jury.
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Madden, supra [ , ]; , ; , 225 P. 482 .
Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Although this failure to comply with the rules permits us to decline to consider the issue raised, , State v. Hill, 11 Ariz.App.
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Ong v. Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. 503 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Zakroff v. May, 8 Ariz.App.
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
230 , , ; Dykeman v. Ashton, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Contreras 481 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1971
State v. Contreras 481 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1971
Conversely, , , , , , 17 A.R.S.
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hill 463 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
[Cases cited.]” See also: , ; , .
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
State v. Sorensen 455 P.2d 981 Ariz. 1969
State v. Schroeder, supra.
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
People v. Finch, 213 Cal.App.2d 752 , 29 Cal.Rptr.