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. Rhodes, 517 P.2d 507.

45 citing documents.

  • State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶¶ 29–31; (concluding that the prosecutor’s statement was an impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify, but the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict in light of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt and the context within which it was made”); (concluding prosecutorial misconduct is prejudicial when “evidence hangs in delicate balance [and] any prejudicial comment [is] likely to tip the scales in favor of the State”).
  • State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
  • State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
    State v. Rhodes , , 238, , 508 (1973) ; see also State v. Trostle , , 16, , 881 (1997) (improper comment harmless given "overwhelming evidence of guilt").
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    where he was on the night in question because it was “a direct comment on defendant’s failure to take the witness stand”); (concluding that the prosecutor’s statement “No one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witness” constituted fundamental error); (reversing defendant’s conviction based on prosecutor’s comment that defendant “did not explain away off [the] witness stand” and explaining that in a case in which the “rights agai
  • State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See, e.g., Blackman, , 38 P.3d at 1210 (noting prosecutor “did not refer directly” to defendant’s failure to testify); , (fundamental error where prosecutor said “ ‘no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witnesses’ ”); , (prosecutor’s “direct comment on the defendant’s failure to take the witness stand” constituted fundamental error).
  • State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
    (stating that comment on defendant’s failure to testify is normally fundamental error); , (holding that direct comment on defendant’s failure to take the witness stand is fundamental error whether the comment was accidental or intentional).
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
    termine whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive them to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.” Schrock, 149 Ariz. at 438 , 719 P.2d at 1054 ; , (prosecutor’s comment, “no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary,” held to be fundamental error); , (prosecutor’s comment, “that [defendant] did not have to explain away, or that [defendant] did not explain away off of that witness stand,” held improper) (emphasis omitted).
  • State v. McCutcheon 764 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. McCutcheon 764 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1988
  • Mecham v. Gordon 751 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1988
  • Mecham v. Gordon 751 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
    (comment, “No one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary ...” held to be fundamental error); , (“that she did not have to explain away, or that she did not explain away off of that witness stand” held improper).
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Brydges 653 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    The statements alluded to by the defendant as demonstrating prosecutorial misconduct do not make impermissible reference to the defendant’s failure to testify, , or make impermissible personal opinions as to the credence to be given to the witnesses’ testimony or facts before the jury
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
    1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)
  • State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Cannon 576 P.2d 132 Ariz. 1978
    State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Fleming 571 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Fleming 571 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Holsinger 563 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Holsinger 563 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
    Griffin v. California, supra.
  • State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    .” (emphasis added) The defendant contends that these comments by the prosecutor constitute allusions to his failure to take the stand and are reversible error
  • State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
    State v. White, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Thornton 549 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    Far from being calculated to focus the jury’s attention on the defendant’s failure personally to testify, see, , this statement merely amounted to an assertion that the State’s evidence was uncontroverted.
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
    1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)
  • State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
    this Court reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial as the prosecutor had made a direct comment on the defendant’s failure to take the witness stand.
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Arredondo 526 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1974
    Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct.