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. Jones, 521 P.2d 978.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶8 Although she may argue with his strategy, a defendant may be bound by her counsel’s “trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a ‘mere farce or sham.’” n.3, n.3 (1996) ( ).
  • State v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    P.2d 978 (1974) (discussing, in dicta, discretionary recross authorized under Arizona Rule of Evidence 611), P.2d 581 (1983).
  • State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
    A defendant is bound by counsel’s trial strategy “so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a mere ‘farce or sham.’” State v. (John L.) Jones, P.2d 581 (1983).
  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
    In Collins, 133 Ariz. at 23 , 648 P.2d at 138 , the court of appeals correctly points out that counsel generally controls trial strategy, , : [I]t is well established that the accused is bound by the trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a mere "farce or sham.” Collins, convicted of burglary, raised a question closely related to the issue presented here
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
    The State, on the other hand, contends that a , , , cert.
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
    to support admission of the polygraph test, but it does not help his position.
  • State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    In holding that counsel could generally control trial strategy, , that: “[I]t is well established that the accused is bound by the trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a mere ‘farce or sham.’ ”
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
    “[I]t is well established that the accused is bound by the trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a mere ‘farce or sham.’ (citations omitted) , ”
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Hall 577 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Hall 577 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1978
    See e. g. State *464 v. Jones
  • State v. Quinn 592 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Quinn 592 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); , cert, denied, 419 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct.
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Magby 554 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Williams 545 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1976
    “The principal purpose of recross is to clarify any new or confusing matters brought out during redirect.” at 550, 551 , at 982, 983 (1974).
  • State v. Farni 539 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Farni 539 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1975
    on this point : “ * * * [I]t is well established that the accused is bound by the trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a mere ‘farce or sham.’ Bouchard v. United States, 344 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1965); Kruchten v. Eyman, 406 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1969); State v. Kruchten, 101 Ariz.' 186, * * at 550 , at 982 (1974).
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
    we have consistently held that the results of a polygraph examination is admissible only by stipulation: “Polygraph results are not admissible for any purpose at trial except on stipulation of the parties.”