DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tacon, 488 P.2d 973.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 458 (1912) (Absconding while on bail throughout the trial may not operate as a defense for absence.); -57 (1971) (Defendant’s absence was voluntary when he failed to appear because he had no funds to travel for his trial.); State v. Superior Court (Ochoa), (When a defendant absconds and fails to communicate with his attorney, his absence is voluntary.).
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    The adoption of this standard in Arizona has the implied approval of the supreme court, , ...: In order for a defendant to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be present at the trial, he must be aware that the trial will proceed without him if he fails to appear.
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    See also Tudgay, 128 Ariz. at 3 , 623 P.2d at 362 (“Once a defendant’s knowledge of the trial date is shown, the defendant has the burden of persuading the court that his absence was not voluntary.”) ( , ).
  • State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Sainz 924 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Sainz 924 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Rule 9.1 “comports with the requirement of a waiver of the defendant’s constitutional *473 rights provided that the defendant is afforded a hearing to determine whether his absence was, in fact, voluntary.” Brewer v. Raines, 670 F.2d 117, 120 (9th Cir.1982); , cert.
  • State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Aragon 658 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Aragon 658 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    The court may infer that an absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal notice of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present at it, and a warning that the proceeding would go forward in his absence should he fail to appear.” (Emphasis added) , cert.
  • State v. Tudgay 623 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tudgay 623 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1981
    “Once a defendant’s knowledge of the trial date is shown, the defendant has the burden of persuading the court that his absence was not voluntary.”
  • State v. Canady 606 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Canady 606 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Perez 563 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Perez 563 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
    112 Ariz. at 353 , 541 P.2d at 1155 ; , cert.
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    500 (1912); , , Rule 9.1, supra; Rule 26.9, supra.
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    This situation, of course, P.2d 400 (1965) where there was no showing that the absent witness could even be found, , cert.
  • State v. Goldsmith 542 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Goldsmith 542 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Armenta 541 P.2d 1154 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Armenta 541 P.2d 1154 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Thornburg 527 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Thornburg 527 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Phillips, supra; State v. Hughes, supra
  • State v. Cochran 509 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Cochran 509 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Davis 498 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Davis 498 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1972
    Defendant argues (a) that there is no proof that his absence was voluntary, and (b) that there is no proof that he knew that the trial could proceed in his absence, (a) is completely answered by our opinion in State v. Tacón, , , in which we clearly stated: “Once a defendant’s knowledge of the trial date is shown, the defendant has the burden of persuading the court that his absence was not voluntary.” With reference to (b), the following language in Tacón, supra, lends some support to defendant
  • Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971
  • Acheson v. Shafter 490 P.2d 832 Ariz. 1971