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. Williams, 499 P.2d 97.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
    (no abuse of discretion where defendant offered a ride to each victim and beat each before raping her); , (factors to consider in determining whether severance is appropriate include closeness in time of the incidents, locations, and the criminal’s behavior); , (common factors included the locations where the victims were picked up, the time of
  • State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
    See State v. Jonas, supra; cf. State v. Sustaita, supra; , State v. Butler, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Phelps 608 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
    Similarly, , that an information may not be amended to charge a different crime.
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. McGill 580 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. McGill 580 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1978
    Rule 13.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    See, e. g., , 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 14.02[1], at 14-3 (2d ed., 1965).
  • State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    and the cases cited therein.
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Druke 564 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Druke 564 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. LaBarre 561 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. LaBarre 561 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976
    Severance will also be granted if the court detects “the presence or absence of unusual features of the crimes or cases that might prejudice the defendant.”
  • State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
    We have stated on innumerable occasions that “the broad discretion of the trial [court] on this matter will not be disturbed unless the discretion has been shown to have been so abused as to prejudice [the] defendant.” State v. Williams
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Delvecchio 504 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Delvecchio 504 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972