Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 485 P.2d 832.
- State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Madrigal
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(explaining the “range of discussion and argumentation is very wide and matters of common knowledge may be referred to”).
- State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
-
State v. Jackson
821 P.2d 1374
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
“A defendant may not permit evidence to be introduced without objection and later make its admission grounds for a mistrial.”
- State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
-
State v. Sullivan
635 P.2d 501
Ariz. 1981
cert, denied 382 U.S. 1015 , 86 S.Ct.
- State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Padilla 595 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Padilla 595 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Moore
540 P.2d 1252
Ariz. 1975
this Court held that reference by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the prevalence of crime is not improper; further that the prosecuting attorney has a right to call attention to the prevalence of crime (crime rate), to urge the jury to do its duty and uphold the law, and to draw infer
- 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
- State v. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Barnett
531 P.2d 148
Ariz. 1975
State v. *394 Williams, P.2d 832 (1971).
- State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Jaramillo 520 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Jaramillo
520 P.2d 1105
Ariz. 1974
this Court held that reference by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the prevalence of crime is not im *484 proper; further that the prosecuting attorney has a right to call attention to the prevalence of crime (crime rate), to urge the jury to do its duty and uphold the law, and to draw
- State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Clark 517 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
- Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
- Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
- Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
- Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971