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. Moore, 495 P.2d 445.

84 citing documents.

  • State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
    We have stated: “ * * * Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel for his misdeeds * *
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Evidence is not admissible except as it may show a tendency or likelihood of a plan common to all offenses to commit the crime.” 267 , 183 (1963)
  • State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Carner 541 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Carner 541 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    State v. Keith, 24 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Jackson 535 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Jackson 535 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    No profile shot of the defendant was attached to this full face view, , and no numbers were visible below the picture, State v. Cumbo, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Nunez 534 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Nunez 534 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Jacobs, supra, and State v. Cumbo, supra.”
  • State v. Moore 519 P.2d 1145 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Moore 519 P.2d 1145 Ariz. 1974
    overzealousness of counsel becomes reversible error when it deprives the defendant of a fair trial.
  • State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
    There are exceptions to this rule as, for example, when the evidence is competent to prove the specific crime charged, State v. Byrd, supra; , State v. Hughes, supra; , , , or where the defense counsel purposely or negligently injects this allegedly prejudicial material.
  • State v. Lovely 517 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Lovely 517 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1973
    However, we doubt whether it had an appreciable effect on the verdict, , : “Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel .
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
    the holding in Cumbo was approved by this Court and the admission of the “mug shot” in Moore was held to be reversible error.
  • State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
    “[mjisconduct aloné will not cause a reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel for its misdeeds, but where the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel, we will reverse.” 108 Ariz. at 222 , 495 P.2d at 452 .
  • State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
    and State v. Cumbo, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    z. 139, 143 , 213 P. 1011, 1012 (1923): “[I]n the prosecution of one accused of a particular offense, evidence showing or tending to show the commission by accused of another crime entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same class, is neither relevant nor admissible.” , abuse of this rule is a frequent cause of reversal.