Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clayton, 514 P.2d 720.

70 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Although the trial court was best equipped to evaluate L.’s demeanor and the tenor of her answers, see State v. Clayton, 109 Ariz. 587, 592, L. clearly had serious reservations about her ability to be objective and unbiased in deciding a case that involved considerable illegal drug use.
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
at 458-59, ¶27 , 999 P.2d at 802-03 (juror stated “I think I can be fair”); , (juror responded “I guess” when asked if he could keep an open mind despite pretrial publicity; another juror said he did not “believe” the publicity would affect his ability to do the same); -93 , -26 (1973) (juror “would try” to follow instructions regarding the law of self-defense); , (juror “believed” he could be fair and impartial).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
-93 , -26 (1973) (juror “would try” to follow instructions); , (juror “believed” he could be fair and impartial).
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(juror rehabilitated who stated “I will try to follow the law the way it is, is all I can say.”) We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s failure to strike the prospective juror for cause.
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
(dismissal of premeditated murder count at conclusion of State’s case did not prevent jurors from finding defendant guilty of felony murder).
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Distinguished State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
See State v. Clayton, 109 * P.2d 720 (1973)
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1983
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
“[T]he accused cannot set up in his own defense a necessity which he brought upon himself.” , , entitles one who provokes an incident, charged with felony-murder, to self-defense instructions.
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Sourivathong 636 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Munson 631 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Munson 631 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Clayton, 109 Ariz. [587], , , ” 121 Ariz. at 198, .
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lujan 604 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1979
this Court said that burglary and murder in the perpetration of burglary are separate offenses of different natures and could be separately punished.
State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
State v. Valencia 589 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1979
State v. Valencia 589 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1979
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
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. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976
State v. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976