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. Melcher, 487 P.2d 3.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Lohmeier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Lohmeier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (finding an abuse of discretion when the superior court granted a new trial based on a juror’s affidavit impeaching the verdict).
  • State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (rejecting defendant’s request to examine a juror because the jury was polled and “substantial case law holds that the subjective motives and mental processes of a juror are not a proper area of inquiry to impeach a verdict.”); (finding an abuse of discretion when the superior court granted a new trial based on a juror affidavit after the verdict was announced and the jury was polled).
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    158 n. 1, , 4 n. 1 (1971).
  • State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    158 n. 1, , 4 n. 1 (1971).
  • State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    (although defendant’s automobile was not physically involved, defendant could be convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the death of the driver of the second automobile he was racing and in the deaths of the occupants of the third automobile the second automobile struck).
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    is of some help on this issue.
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    State v. Reynolds, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Compton 621 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Compton 621 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    relied on by the state are not apposite because they do not rely on the fact that the jurors were polled, but, stand for the doctrine enunciated in the traditional rule that was in existence prior to the enactment of the new criminal rules.
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Cipriano 539 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Cipriano 539 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • 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