Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonzales, 466 P.2d 388.

116 citing documents.

State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
-79 , -77 (1982); , State v. Reim, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Rainey 672 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Rainey 672 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
208 P. 412, 415-16 (1922).
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Mincey, supra; , ( , ).
State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
State v. Harrington, supra; Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 , 55 S.Ct.
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
State v. Marvin 606 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marvin 606 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1980
State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
State v. Newman 595 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1979
A criminal defendant is always entitled to any reasonable doubt in his favor * *
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Griffin 570 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1977
State v. Griffin 570 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
If there has been no abuse of that discretion and it appears that substantial justice has been done the court will not reverse the judgment.”
State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cookus 563 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1977
State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
State v. Freeman 559 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1976
State v. Houlf 557 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Houlf 557 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. McClarity 557 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. McClarity 557 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
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
our Supreme Court, , stated: The best rule for determining whether remarks made by counsel in criminal cases are so objectionable as to cause a reversal of the case is, Do the remarks call to the attention of the jurors matters whic
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. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
affirmed after remand on other grounds
State v. Scott 537 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Scott 537 P.2d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
: “The best rule for determining whether remarks made by counsel in criminal cases are so objectionable as to cause a reversal of the case is, Do the remarks call to the attention of the jurors matters which they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict, and were they, un
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The established rule in Arizona is that if improper statements are made by counsel during the trial, the opposition must object so that the court may make the necessary correction by proper instruction
State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
State v. Morales 520 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974