Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 4 P.3d 388.

44 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso Ariz. 2025
See Stewart, 202 Ariz. at 449 ¶ 9 (describing such a right as one that is “so inherently personal that it cannot be waived by defense counsel; only the defendant can waive it” ( ¶ 17 (App. 1999))).
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-35 (1980); ¶ 11 (App. 1999), ¶ 17 (2009).
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8 (App. 2006) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1999)).
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
4 See, ¶ 21, (reversible error when defendant’s right to twelve person jury waived by defense counsel’s stipulation with state that sentences would run concurrently, resulting in a sentence of less than thirty years); ¶¶ 10, 12, (App. 1998
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Our cases have referred to this error both as “fundamental error,” , ¶ 21 , , ¶ 10 , and as “structural error,” ¶¶ 21-22 , State v. Ring (Ring III), 204 Ari
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
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
18 911 (1976) (waiver of right to jury trial); (right to twelve-person jury); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2052-53 (1973) (“Almost without exception, the requirement of a knowing and intelligent waiver has been applied only to those rights which the Constitution guarantees to a crimin
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
A suspect is in custody if “‘under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would feel that he was in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.’” quoting Carter, 145 Ariz. at 105, 700 P.2d at 492; (“The test used to determine if a person is in custody under a Fifth Amendment analysis is whether the person’s freedom of movement is restricted to the ex
State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
340, ¶2 , 395 (App.1999).
State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
340, ¶ 2 , 395 (App.1999).
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
1019 ); ¶ 16 , ("[B]efore there can be a waiver, the record must show a knowing waiver by defendant.") ( , ).
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
340 ¶ 2, 21, 395 (App.1999); , 280 ¶ 26-27
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
§ 21-102(A); , (defendant entitled to twelve-person jury when exposed to sentence in excess of thirty years notwithstanding that actual sentences imposed totaled 7.5 years).
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
2d 578, ¶ 22 (1998) (The waiver of the right to counsel “must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”); (When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial, “the court must always address the defendant personally, pursuant to [Rule] 18.1(b)(1) to ascertain ‘that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.’”); (“[A] defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury under the Arizona Constitution is a right so inherently personal that it cannot be waived by defense counsel; only the defendant can wa
In Re Jorge D. 43 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Jorge D. 43 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
1602 ); ¶ 4 , (employing an objective test to determine "whether under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would feel that he was in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way”) (
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Thus, preclusion would not apply to claims involving such constitutional rights as the right to counsel, , the right to a jury trial, , or the right to be tried by a twelve-person jury, , unless the record establishes that the defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right.
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
3, 6 , -340 , -395 (App.1999) (defendant tried to eight-person rather than twelve-person jury to which he was entitled; not possible to predict what properly composed jury might have done).