Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Riggins, 528 P.2d 625.

40 citing documents.

State v. Quarles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quarles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See State v. Haywood, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 36, (affirming denial of Rule 20 motion, and rejecting defendant’s argument under § 13-205(A) that the State failed to show that self-defense “did not occur,” because the jury could have found use of deadly force was not justified); (“Evidence is not insubstantial simply because the testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions therefrom.”); ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (“If reasonable persons could differ as to whether the evidence
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶24 But jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled and sworn, or when the defendant pleads guilty, ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶20 “Jeopardy attaches as soon as the jury is impaneled and sworn.” (citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978); Solomon, 125 Ariz. at 21; ).
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Had the court declined the prosecutor’s request not to swear the jury, jeopardy would have attached and the dismissal would have been with prejudice.2
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We do not reweigh the evidence and will reverse only if “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” -25 (1976) (); (“The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses.”) ().
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
court required counsel to conform questions “to the dictates of existing law” and “allowed sufficient latitude in determining whether each venireperson could fairly and impartially follow the court’s instructions”); 4 None of these jurors was ultimately chosen for the jury panel.
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
1268 , 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986)
Andrade v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Andrade v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
McLaughlin v. Fahringer 723 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1986
McLaughlin v. Fahringer 723 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1986
2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); State v. Solomon, 125 Ariz. at 21 , 607 P.2d at 4
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
First, the defense of double jeopardy is available even in the absence of a final judgment, , the doctrine of collateral estoppel requires a final judgment.
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa 618 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1980
City of Tucson v. Valencia, 21 Ariz.App.
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Rule 104(a), Arizona Rules of Evidence (preliminary questions of admissibility are to be decided by the court)
State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. Smith 561 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1977
State v. Molina, 5 Ariz.App.
State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
State v. Scott 555 P.2d 1117 Ariz. 1976
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Moreno 547 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
As the comment to Rule 18.5 states “this rule places the primary responsibility for conducting the jury examination on the court rather than on counsel.” [ , ]
State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976