DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prewitt, 452 P.2d 500.

48 citing documents.

  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    The prosecutor properly used opening remarks “to apprise the jury of what the party expects to prove and prepare the jurors’ minds 6 STATE v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court for the evidence which is to be heard,” and closing argument to “summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions,”
  • State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
  • State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    –29 (App. 1990) () (concluding use of force in self-defense is an intentional act).
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (jury could get necessary evidence from testimony, diagrams, and photographs as opposed to viewing crime scene); , (when view of premises immaterial to defense, defendant’s request properly denied).
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • 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. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    This Court has held nonetheless that “[t]he object of an opening statement is to apprise the jury of what the party expects to prove and prepare the jurors’ minds for the evidence which is to be heard.”
  • State v. Islas 582 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Islas 582 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • 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. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
    The rule of the court will only be disturbed when this discretion is abused * *
  • State v. James 519 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. James 519 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Money 514 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Money 514 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
    We find defendant’s , and find the following language in Prevuitt applicable to the instant case: “The court instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter.
  • State v. Sorrell 506 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Sorrell 506 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Jones 505 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    The trial court has the “duty to instruct the jury on every grade of offense reasonably supported by the evidence and conversely, to refuse to instruct as to the other grades of the offense not reasonably supported by the evidence.”
  • State v. Jones 505 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Quila 502 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Martin 489 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Martin 489 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
    This inference, in addition to the fact that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant shot other than intentionally substantiate the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction in involuntary manslaughter.”
  • 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. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
    we held it was not error for the court to permit an officer to testify in regard to the sanity of a defendant based on statements and conduct of the defendant in the officer’s presence, even though the opinion was based partly upon a conversation with the defendant which had been suppressed by the cou