Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Scott, 537 P.2d 40.

33 citing documents.

State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Because defense counsel never provided an adequate explanation for his failure to comply with Rule 15.2’s express requirements, the superior court “could draw a justifiable inference of lack of good faith on [his] part.”
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This court will affirm the superior court’s decision “unless there is invective so palpably improper that it is clearly injurious.” (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(court within its discretion ordering preclusion for untimely disclosure of defense witnesses).
Barrs v. WILKINSON IN AND FOR MARICOPA 924 P.2d 1033 Ariz. 1996
Barrs v. WILKINSON IN AND FOR MARICOPA 924 P.2d 1033 Ariz. 1996
State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Gonzales 596 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Gonzales 596 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Coleman 593 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Coleman 593 P.2d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Appellant’s , requires preclusion is without merit.
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Tucker 548 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Tucker 548 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Adams, 1 Ariz.App.
State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Whether or not improper argument constitutes grounds for a mistrial however, is a matter for the trial court’s discretion the exercise of which will not be reviewed on appeal unless there is “invective so palpably improper that it is clearly injurious.” , State v. Adams, 1 Ariz.App.