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. Jensen, 531 P.2d 531.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See Smith, 107 Ariz. at 103 , 482 P.2d at 866 (state must actively enter picture to obtain desired information)
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    the supreme court adhered to its earlier statement in Peats , observing: “The jury ha[s] an obligation of finding the defendant guilty, not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity---- What happens] after their verdict [is] not their concern.” See also State v. McLoughlin, 133 Ariz.
  • State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
    should never be considered by the jury in its deliberations”); , (defendant not entitled to instruction on disposition even if requested); , 475 P.2d.
  • State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McShine 642 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. McShine 642 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Skaggs 586 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Doss 568 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Sturgis 553 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Sturgis 553 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1976
    The second issue raised on appeal asks this court, in effect, to review and reverse its decision in the recent opinion
  • State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
    2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Fike, supra
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
    As noted in our opinion in State v. Smith, supra, 107 Ariz. at 103 , 482 P.2d at 866 , at 412 , at 535 (1975), “.