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. O'DELL, 492 P.2d 1160.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Melendez 535 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Doyle, 426 U.S. at 617–19; State v. O’Dell, (explaining that when a suspect “responds to several questions, then lapses into silence when asked an embarrassing question .
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Rios 592 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Rios 592 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
    The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, , (“Then I’ll admit it.”); , (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    See also Agnellino v. New Jersey, 493 F.2d 714 (3rd Cir. 1974) (separate concurring opinions of Seitz, C. J., and Weis, J.); cf. State v. O’Dell
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
    He cites State v. O’Dell
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
    Thus we limit our holding that an admission by silence can be admissible evidence to the facts of the case before us. * * State v. O’Dell
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
    In State v. O’Dell, , , the judge’s ruling was: “I’ll admit it,” after a hearing, and we again held that to be insufficient.
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 503 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    We note at this point a very recent case by the State Supreme Court, State of Arizona v. O’Dell, , in which our Supreme Court held under very limited circumstances that an admission by silence can be admissible.