Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schmid, 484 P.2d 187.

40 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
(explaining that counsel’s statement in a motion for continuance was a judicial admission).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-94518 674 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1983
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-94518 674 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1983
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
this Court recognized that prior knowledge concerning a case by all of the empaneled jurors was an important factor for the trial judge to consider in ruling on the motion for change of venue, but that standing alone it did not demonstrate such prejudice as would necessitate a change of venue.
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
2191 , 53 L.Ed.2d 234 (1977)
State v. Smith 569 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 569 P.2d 817 Ariz. 1977
See, e. g., Endreson, supra (six of the twelve jurors finally impanelled had prior knowledge of case); , (all impanelled jurors had some knowledge of case).
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
Appellant admits in his brief, however, that it would be admissible to show intent
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
P.2d 81 (1965), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 1008 , 86 S. Ct. 1985 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966)
State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975
State v. Richmond 540 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1975
He can observe the *230 prospective jurors and witnesses, their testimony, demeanor and behavior, as well as the attitudes and crosscurrents of the community in determining whether any actual or supposed prejudice exists —such as would necessitate a change of venue * *
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ruffin 519 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ruffin 519 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1974
We find no abuse of discretion here.” .
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
There are exceptions to this rule as, for example, when the evidence is competent to prove the specific crime charged, State v. Byrd, supra; , State v. Hughes, supra; , , , or where the defense counsel purposely or negligently injects this allegedly prejudicial material.
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
State v. Schmid 509 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1973
On December 21, 1965, the Appellant was charged with the murders of Gretchen and Wendy Fritz; however, the facts of this appeal begin with a
State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
State v. Hall 504 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hall 504 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rule 220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
State v. Buggs 501 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971