Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonzales, 466 P.2d 388.
-
State v. Morales
520 P.2d 1136
Ariz. 1974
this court stated: “Our law permits trial counsel wide latitude in presenting closing arguments to the jury, (citing cases) ....
- State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
- State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
-
State v. Gregory
501 P.2d 387
Ariz. 1972
ried too far may result in the granting of a new trial or reversal, but as we have stated: “In the closing argument, excessive and emotional language is the bread and butter weapon of counsel’s forensic arsenal, limited by the principle that attorneys are not permitted to introduce or comment upon evidence which has not pre *449 viously been offered and placed before the jury.”
- State v. Dixon 489 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Dixon
489 P.2d 225
Ariz. 1971
Art. 6, § 5(4), Arizona Constitution.
- State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
- State v. Melcher 487 P.2d 3 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971