Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moore, 502 P.2d 1351.

28 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
¶183 A record that is of “sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned” is “satisfactory to afford [a] defendant 59 STATE V. RILEY Opinion of the Court a meaningful right of appeal.” ().
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
A record need not be perfect so long as it is of “‘sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned.’” Id.
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
¶61 The court record must be sufficiently complete to allow “adequate consideration of the errors assigned.” (citing Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963)).
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
It is, however, of “sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned.”
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
1234 , 84 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985); , cert.
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
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
547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971); , .
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. Madrid 552 P.2d 451 Ariz. 1976
State v. Marks 546 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1976
State v. Marks 546 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1976
State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1975
If he did not, the defendant should not have been retried.”
State v. Curry 511 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1973
State v. Curry 511 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1973
State v. Fenton 506 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Fenton 506 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
the court held that where the jury was divided nine to three after 24 hours of submission of the case, the foreman stated that agreement by the jury was unlikely, and all but one juror agreed that further deliberation would not be fruitful, there was sufficient basis for declaration of a mistri
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Ballinger 504 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973