Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Delvecchio, 519 P.2d 1137.

32 citing documents.

State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(recognizing a disruptive defendant may lose the right to be present at trial if the defendant continues the disruption after being warned the disruption may result in the defendant’s removal from the courtroom); see also Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970) (recognizing the same as Delvecchio).
State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
It is generally understood that a defendant disrupts the trial by acting “in such a manner as to seriously disrupt the proceedings, either by refusing to exercise the decorum necessary to ensuring an orderly proceeding or by denying the court due respect.” Whalen, 192 Ariz. at 107; (the defendant insisted on disobeying court rules); (defendant ordered bound and gagged due to outbursts and refusal to obey judge’s orders).
State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(finding no error where the superior court directed advisory counsel to represent pro per defendants while the defendants were absent from the proceedings); Ariz. R. Crim.
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
he can effectively forgo that assistance through his actions.’’); , ("By his conduct" a defendant may forfeit the right to be present at court proceedings.).
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations."); , ("[A trial judge] is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases."); ¶ 15 , (recognizing trial court's inherent authority to conduct proceedings necessary to exerci
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations.”); , (“[A trial judge] is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases.”); ¶ 15 , (recognizing trial court’s inherent authority to conduct proceedings necessary to exerci
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
State v. Hampton 92 P.3d 871 Ariz. 2004
Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1100-01; (noting that a defendant, by his disruptive behavior, may forfeit his right to be present during certain criminal proceedings); Daniel Y., 206 Ariz. at 262 ¶ 24, 3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has suggested that, in accordance with Farett
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(no error in allowing appointed advisory counsel to take over ease of defendants, who were representing themselves, when they were excluded or voluntarily absent from courtroom); , (trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing defense c
Kpnx Broadcasting v. Superior Court, Etc. 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1984
KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kpnx Broadcasting v. Superior Court, Etc. 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1984
we stressed that "[a] trial judge has not only the right but the responsibility of seeing that trials are conducted properly and without disruption, and he is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases."
KPNX Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court 678 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
we stressed that “[a] trial judge has not only the right but the responsibility of seeing that trials are conducted properly and without disruption, and he is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases.” Id.
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
: A trial judge has not only the right but the responsibility of seeing that trials are conducted properly and without disruption, and he is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases....
State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) and the decisions from our own state
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970)
State v. Renteria 520 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Renteria 520 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
McCormick, Law of Evidence, § 152 (1954).