Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bojorquez, 535 P.2d 6.
- State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Ferguson 586 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Ferguson
586 P.2d 190
Ariz. 1978
We considered and rejected a -54 , -11 (1975).
- State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
- Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
- Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Hall 577 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Hall
577 P.2d 1079
Ariz. 1978
This court has stated: “It is the duty of counsel who raises objections on appeal to see that the record before us contains the material to which he takes exception, (citation omitted)”
- State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Caldwell 573 P.2d 864 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Canaday 574 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. McDonald
571 P.2d 656
Ariz. 1977
we said: “It is the duty of counsel who raises objections on appeal to see that the record before us contains the material to which he takes exception.
- State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Moncayo 564 P.2d 1241 Ariz. 1977
- State v. LaBarre 561 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
State v. LaBarre
561 P.2d 764
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Dessureault, supra
- State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Williams 554 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Williams 554 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Escherivel 552 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Escherivel 552 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
-
State v. Hinkle
550 P.2d 115
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
a similar equal protection argument was presented, namely that because a defendant has a right to counsel, subpoena power, confrontation, notice of charges, and to testify on his own behalf at a preliminary hearing which he does not have with a grand jury, an indicted defendant has been denied equ
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 549 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
- State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Noble 546 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1976