Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Makal, 455 P.2d 450.

35 citing documents.

State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
a general policy,” “what if” police failed to stop a suspicious person, and it turns out that he had committed murder or rape, or “victimizes somebody in the neighborhood later that day,” “what do those officers end up saying?” The prosecutor’s argument, however, was not directed to the risk Alvarez might reoffend if he were acquitted, but responded to Alvarez’s argument that police had no good reason to stop him in the first place.
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
the prosecutor ended his rebuttal by imploring the jury, “Don’t arrive at a verdict which will give Mr. Makal the opportunity to kill again,” meaning that the jury should reject the insanity defense.
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
-66 , -78 (1978); -24 , -20 (1977); , People v. Wallach, 110 Mich.App.
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Marvin 606 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gentry 598 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Gentry 598 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Steele 586 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1978
State v. Steele 586 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1978
State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
State v. Purcell 572 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
Although the admission of the photographs was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, , State v. Robinson, 328 S.W.2d 667 (Mo.1959), we must next determine whether their admission constituted prejudicial error.
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Huson, 73 Wash.2d 660 , cert.
State v. Puffer 516 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1973
Distinguished State v. Puffer 516 P.2d 316 Ariz. 1973
to support his contention that the remark constituted prejudicial error.
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
to support his contention that the admission of the photographs was reversible error.
State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
We reversed and remanded for a new trial, , because of reversible error committed at the trial.