Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bojorquez, 535 P.2d 6.

87 citing documents.

State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(holding that either method of establishing probable cause, indictment by grand jury or preliminary hearing, is constitutionally proper); ¶ 22 (App. 2008) (noting the prosecution may obtain an indictment from a grand jury as an alternative to a preliminary hearing).
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Either method—indictment by grand jury or information after preliminary hearing—is constitutionally proper.” see also U.S. Const. amend.
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
single entity 2 “Arizona law allows a prosecuting attorney to proceed with felony charges by way of an indictment, which reflects a grand jury’s determination that probable cause exists to believe the defendant has committed the charged offense, or by information.” -60, ¶ 25, -78 (2006) (citing Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 30; ).
Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sanchez v. Ainley 308 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Indeed, it could not so hold because the decision to proceed by indictment “is the [Sjtate’s choice.” Sisneros, 137 Ariz. at 325 , 670 P.2d at 723 ; , (referring to the State’s “unfettered discretion” under Arizona Constitution article 2, section 30 “to alternatively prosecute by indictment or information”).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
¶39 Section 21-201 sets forth general qualifications for jury service and reflects the policy that jurors should be 18 “citizens who uphold and obey the law.”
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
See Ariz. Const. art. II, § 30
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 517 , 844 P.2d at 1167 ( , for the proposition that “pretrial hearings are not to be used for purposes of discovery”).
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Because appellant did not object at the time of sentencing and because he has pointed to nothing in the record that would entitle him to additional presentence credit, , we affirm the credit awarded by the trial court.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of City of Tucson 844 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of City of Tucson 844 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
the court made it clear that pretrial hearings are not to be used for purposes of discovery.
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Superior Court 751 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Superior Court 751 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 30.
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
State v. Haas 675 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1983
this court stated: While the appellant attempts to point up the disadvantages of the grand jury system, as compared to the information route, the indictment method by a grand jury is recognized as a fundamental element of the accusatory process under the United States and Arizona Constitu
State v. Superior Court 672 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Superior Court 672 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
78 A.L.R.3d 1135 (1975); Rule 339, Rules of Criminal Procedure (1956)
State v. Berge 634 P.2d 947 Ariz. 1981
State v. Berge 634 P.2d 947 Ariz. 1981
State v. Miller 628 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Miller 628 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
State v. Burr 615 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1980
State v. Burr 615 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1980
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Hinkle, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 596 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 596 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by