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. Dessureault, 453 P.2d 951.

382 citing documents.

  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Harvill 476 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Daniels 474 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1970
  • Followed State v. Daniels 474 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Bernal 474 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Bernal 474 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, § 24, A.R.S.; Rule 163, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Murray 472 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Murray 472 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Shaw 471 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1970
    The record is not clear as to the discussion in chambers between counsel and the court in regard to this mattey; however, , .
  • State v. Gilbert 467 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1970
  • State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court 467 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1970
  • State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court 467 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1970
    Opinion Supplemented, , .
  • State v. Gilbert 467 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1970
    In State v. Dessureault, *478 , , rehearing denied, , we said: “ * * * if the in-court identification is not challenged at the trial level, it will be presumed thereafter that prior identification procedures did not taint the in-court identification.
  • State v. Madden 465 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Madden 465 P.2d 363 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Darby 460 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1969
    wherein we set forth the effective procedure for handling challenged in-court identifications at the trial court level.
  • State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Wilmore 459 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
    However, defendant’s assertion that he was denied a special hearing on the matter of the complaining witnesses’
  • State v. Wilmore 459 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Brown 456 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fields 455 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fields 455 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
    On the second point, regarding the identification of the appellants by the victim following the robbery, , , (#1899 filed April 30, 1969), in which we engaged in a thorough discussion of Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Thorne 453 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Thorne 453 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1969
    we said: “First, where, as here the in-court identification is challenged at the trial level, meaningful review requires that the appellate court reach one of the following conclusions: If it can be determined from the record on clear and convincing evidence that the in-court iden