Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arredondo, 526 P.2d 163.

58 citing documents.

State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Absent contextual matters that would otherwise excuse failure to observe a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, “[n]ormally such a comment [would] constitute[] fundamental error.”
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“Primarily, the prosecutor’s reply was directed not at the failure to testify but at defense counsel’s arguing his personal belief.”); (“[T]he remarks of the prosecutor did not go beyond a pertinent reply and were not prejudicial.”).
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Spriggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Instead, the prosecutor’s remarks were a “reasonable and pertinent [response] to the issues raised by the defense.”
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
(citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)).
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A comment that the prosecution’s evidence is “uncontradicted” is not objectionable unless the defendant “is the only one who could explain or contradict the evidence offered by the state.” (prosecutor’s argument that “everything the officers have said” is “uncontroverted, uncontested” not improper).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
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 i
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
But cf. Cook, 170 Ariz. at 52 , 821 P.2d at 743 (noting that remarks which would normally be fundamental error, if invited, may not be grounds for reversal) ( , ).
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
we held that remarks by the prosecutor that normally would have been fundamental error were “invited and occasioned by the statements of defense counsel; hence they are not grounds for reversal.” Here, after demonstrating self-restraint that the trial court found remarkable given Cook’
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
And I said, ‘Go ahead, and I will bring Officer Oviedo back in the room’.” Even though the State must show “ ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ that the confession was freely and voluntarily made,” , , , and the trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if the State has met its burden, Arnett and Knapp, supra, we will not overturn the trial court’s determination absent clear and manifest error.
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
The Judge will tell you that.” , we held that a comment by the prosecution was a comment on the failure of defendant to take the stand.
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Osbond 623 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1981
State v. Osbond 623 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1981
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
State v. Porter 595 P.2d 998 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
State v. Still 582 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1978
State v. Still 582 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1978
stands for the proposition that it is of no consequence that the appellant was the only person who could have explained his representations to Young.
State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977
State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977