Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Maloney, 464 P.2d 793.

78 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
370, , 458 (1972) (same, and stating: "Unless and until the United States Supreme Court orders us to do otherwise, or until the Arizona legislature sees fit to abolish the use of the death penalty in this State, we will continue to uphold its constitutionality and affirm its imposition when, because of aggravating circumstances, it is warranted."); State v. Maloney , , 358-60, , 803-05 (1970) (upholding capital punishment under article 2, section 15 while recognizing that societal status of that
State v. Martin 424 P.3d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martin 424 P.3d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Martin also cites State v. Maloney , , which held that double jeopardy barred a defendant's retrial on first-degree murder after he was convicted of second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, finding the facts in Green v. United States , 355 U.S. 184 , 78 S.Ct.
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The State is not required to introduce all evidence so long as material evidence has been presented to the court that “bear[s] upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.” (citation omitted).
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The State is not required to produce or introduce all evidence so long as material evidence has been presented to the court that “bear[s] upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.” (citation omitted).
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
("newly announced principle of double jeopardy” applied to "those cases on direct appeal on the date this decision is rendered" but not "to cases finalized prior thereto”); , (when new decision applies only prospectivel
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“The basic rule of equal protection in criminal cases is that no person should be subject to a greater or different punishment than another in similar circumstances.”) (emphasis added); , (“It is settled law that any one penalty does not abridge the rights of a person under the Equal Protection Clause so long as no one person is subject to any different or greater punishment than others of the same class.”).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
In White I , : ¶ 39 Equal protection of the laws here means only that the death penalty may be applied to all persons in the State in a like position.
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957); United States v. Paul, 37 F.3d 496, 501 (9th Cir.1994); -57 , -02 (1970).
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
the supreme court held that: Each constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background of precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
See, e. g., , , , , cert, denied, 400 U.S. 841 , 91 S.Ct.
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
Baca v. Smith 604 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1979
Baca v. Smith 604 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1979
Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Thompson v. Hagan, 96 Idaho 19 , see also, , cert.
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
where we said that there is no compulsion on the prosecution to call any particular witness or to make any particular test so long as there is fairly presented the material evidence bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial.
State v. MacUmber 582 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1978
State v. MacUmber 582 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1978
we met this issue saying: “It would be comfortable if a comprehensive formula could be devised to determine when the fairness of a trial is violated by withholding or destroying evidence which is, or may be, exculpatory.
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
: “It is settled law that any one penalty does not abridge the rights of a person under the Equal Protection Clause so long as no one person is subject to any different or greater punishment than others of the same class.
State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Thompson v. Hagan, 96 Idaho 19 , see also, , City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation, 14 Ariz.App.
State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See, e. g., , holding that the new double jeopardy rule should apply to “those cases on direct appeal on the date this decision is rendered.” See also Phoenix Newspapers, , cert.
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Bradford 544 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976