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. Werring, 523 P.2d 499.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See, (reversing because the jury sent the judge factual questions about the case and the judge answered from his notes “in the absence of the defendant and counsel”); (reversing because although counsel were informed of a jury note, they were not allowed to see the note or to make a record of the incident before the judge answered the questions); (reversing because the judge responded to a jury question about the case without f
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    P.2d 499 (1974); P.2d 377 (1956).
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
    338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
    338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
    at 141-42 , 568 P.2d at 1039-40
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    In so ruling, , , which held to the same effect.
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
    (the trial judge answered from his notes and recollection questions submitted by the jury while deliberating); , , (both cases involved the actual physical intrusion by the judge into the jury room where he communicated orally with the panel on issues of fact and law).
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    State v. Mata, supra; , , , , State v. Corrales, supra.
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    (the jury sent the judge questions about the facts of the case and the judge answered from his notes and his recollections); , (counsel were informed of the jury note’s contents but were not allowed to see the note or to make a record of the incident.
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
    We find that appellant’s , , , is misplaced.
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Robin 543 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Robin 543 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
    Such instruction may be given and such testimony read only after notice to the county attorney and counsel for the defendant.” Although we have stated that it is error to communicate to the jury out of the presence of counsel and the defendant, , and that the defendant is not required to show prejudice, , we have also stated that: “Rule 231, Par.