Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Latigue, 502 P.2d 1340.

42 citing documents.

Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Verdell Carmen Hamlet v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
( (applying former version of rules of professional conduct)).
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. chambers/henderson 533 P.3d 195 Ariz. 2023
(affirming disqualification of the Navajo County Attorney’s Office where a defendant’s criminal defense attorney withdrew mid-representation to join the Office); –23 (1972) (finding a substantial relationship when deputy public defender who worked as co-counsel for the defendant left to become chief deputy county attorney for the prosecuting agency).
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
“Justice and the law must rest upon the complete confidence of the thinking public and to do so they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 9 Because Villalpando did not object to the substitution of the Mesa Prosecutor when the motion for substitution was made, the justice court’s approval of that substitution was in effect the appointment of a “special prosecutor.” , (After the disqualification of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, it was “necessary that the County Attorney secure the appointment of a special prosecutor if he wishes to continue the prosecution of this case”).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 908 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gottsfield 829 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In coming to this conclusion
In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
Distinguished In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Turbin v. Superior Court 797 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Our supreme court established the standard by which to decide a motion to disqualify a prosecutor’s
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In his motion for new trial, defense counsel contended that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had a clear conflict of interest in prosecuting the defendant on the present charges and that a new trial was required
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
The court of appeals reversed defendant’s conviction, perceiving a “strong appearance of impropriety” in the violation of Rule 18.5(h)
State v. Blackhoop 763 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Blackhoop 763 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Matter of Wetzel 691 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Wetzel 691 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1984
In his opening brief, , , in support of *39 his claim that Mr. Hart’s participation cast an impermissible taint on the proceedings.
Alexander v. Superior Court 685 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1984
Alexander v. Superior Court 685 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1984
State v. Master 663 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Master 663 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
notes that even the appearance of impropriety or unfairness cannot be permitted.
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
State v. Brooks 616 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Brooks 616 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
There is no occasion, therefore, , to the facts presented in this case and we decline to find that a conflict of interest existed.
State v. Knapp 611 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1979
State v. Knapp 611 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1979
While we have recognized the principle urged upon us as fundamental, , , in our opinion, when scrutinized in context, the commentary of the sentencing authority amounted to little more than an expression of his view of the appropriate punishment based upon the facts before him, and gave no indication of prejudice.
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
defendant now argues that this denial was error, because the appearance of impropriety should have dis *235 qualified the County Attorney's office.
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Lozano 588 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Distinguished State v. Lozano 588 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
While we agree that in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety the prosecutor should not have participated in the case, , mandates reversal here.