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. Sanchez, 635 P.2d 1217.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    21 when portions of the record are repeated at the request of the jury during their deliberations.”) (citations omitted); (“[T]he reading of the testimony of a state’s witness to the jury in [the defendant’s] absence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.”); see also State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 467, (Confrontation Clause issue presented when jury asked qu
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    See Bus-tamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269, 273, 274 (9th Cir.1972) (defendant in capital case had unwaivable constitutional right to be present when tape-recorded instructions replayed for jury); , (defendant had right to be present when testimony reread to jury); , -41 , -56 (1980) (“The general rule in Arizona is that reversible error occurs when a trial judg
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    See, , , , , State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Division Two of this court addressed the admissibility of admissions by the defendant which might constitute “bad acts”
  • State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Lopez 754 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Lopez 754 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Defendant was thus given a choice between having photographs of his tattoos admitted, , (photographs of defendant’s tattoos were properly admitted as exhibits as tending to identify the defendant), or to show the tattoos in court.
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
    To support his contention that no specific reasons for consecutive sentences appear in the record
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Rosthenhausler 711 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Rosthenhausler 711 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Kimmel 703 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Kimmel 703 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    322 , , stating that such conferences should be recorded, the trial judge refused to do so.
  • State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State of Arizona v. Lacey 694 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Berndt 672 P.2d 1311 Ariz. 1983
    State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    However, , we held this does not constitute reversible error absent some demonstrable prejudice and appellant does not refer us to any specific instances when he may have been prejudiced by this practice.
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Sorrell 645 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Sorrell 645 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1982
    State v. Anderson, supra
  • State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    we considered State v. Mullaley, supra, and concluded that the only possible correct interpretation of the opinion would limit it to sentencing following multiple convictions under A.R.S.
  • State v. Woratzeck 637 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Woratzeck 637 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981