Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Good, 460 P.2d 662.

27 citing documents.

John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
See Maretick, (prosecutor must not unduly or unfairly influence grand jury and must allow it to act independently); (prosecutor must not act so as to invade province of grand jury or influence its action).
State v. Doolittle 746 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Doolittle 746 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
§ 21-408(A); Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, supra; , overruled on other grounds
State v. Superior Court 580 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Superior Court 580 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Absent such a showing, we do not conceive that the prosecutor’s
State v. Guerrero 580 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Guerrero 580 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Nor do we find any conduct on the part of the prosecutor, , which would indicate an attempt improperly to influence the actions of the jury.
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
2 Appellant further contends that the dialogue between the prosecutor and the grand juror constituted “prejudicial” conduct creating such an “emotional atmosphere” that the grand jury was not able to decide the case “free from sway" within the *468
Wilkey v. Superior Court 566 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Wilkey v. Superior Court 566 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
The attempt to eradicate the notion of any taint of these proceedings must fail, however, if the grand jury system is to accomplish its recognized purpose of affording everyone the “ ‘just, impartial, and unbiased judgment of a grand jury.’ ”
Marston's, Inc. v. Strand 560 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1977
State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the functions of the prosecutor, the judge and the grand jury, when properly executed, act as a system of checks and balances.
State v. Hocker 541 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Hocker 541 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973