DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 570 P.2d 776.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 33 (2002) (error was harmless because the jury made reasoned decisions and acquitted on one of four counts); (harmless error to exclude a statement when the jury acquitted defendant of the charge to which statement would have been relevant); –8 (App. 1977) (not prejudicial error when improperly communicated instruction went to the charge of which defendant was acquitted).
  • State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Even assuming arguendo that Appellant has not waived this argument by failing to raise it in his motion for new trial, -8 (App. 1977), we find no error requiring reversal.
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Day v. Armendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The evidence shows that this was car number two.” ¶47 Even assuming Day has not waived this issue by failing to timely object or clearly raise it in his motion for new trial, see Ritchie, 221 Ariz. at 303, ¶ 51, 211 P.3d at 1287; we find no error.
  • State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • 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
    d waive defendant’s right to be present during reading of testimony and answering of jury questions, and any error subject to harmless error review); (when “defendant’s legal position was represented and protected by the presence of counsel,” no personal waiver required and no error arose from defendant’s absence); -8, -79 (App. 1977) (although trial court erred in communicating with jury “without notice to the defense,” error was waived by defendant’s failure to raise it in motion for new trial
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    (trial court’s ex parte communication to jurors not prejudicial because it merely restated jury instruction).
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
    1 Accord, , (written answers to jury’s questions on matters of law without notice to the defendant or his counsel not reversible error); , (playing taped instructions to jury in absence of defendant not reversible error); State v. Cufio, 12 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    See Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1972); State v. Corrales, supra; , (under circumstances of case, communications between trial judge and jury, without notice to defense, not reversible error where complete record of communications kept).
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    in which we held communication to the jury outside the presence of counsel to be harmless error.
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978