Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robin, 543 P.2d 779.

42 citing documents.

State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, (reversing because the jury sent the judge factual questions about the case and the judge answered from his notes “in the absence of the defendant and counsel”); (reversing because although counsel were informed of a jury note, they were not allowed to see the note
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
eated at the request of the jury during their deliberations.”) (citations omitted); (“[T]he reading of the testimony of a state’s witness to the jury in [the defendant’s] absence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.”); see also State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 467, (Confrontation Clause issue presented when jury asked questions involving factual issues and trial judge answered from his notes and recollection of relevant testimony).
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, , (reversing the defendant's conviction when the trial court communicated with the jury outside of the defendant's and defense counsel's presence); , (reversing the defendant's conviction based upon the trial court's failure to follow Ariz.
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
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
at 141-42 , 568 P.2d at 1039-40
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
(the trial judge answered from his notes and recollection questions submitted by the jury while deliberating); , , (both cases involved the actual physical intrusion by the judge into the ju
State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Mata, supra; , , , , State v. Corrales, supra.
State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the jury, after retiring to deliberate, sent the judge questions which dealt with issues of fact.
State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
(the jury sent the judge questions about the facts of the case and the judge answered from his notes and his recollections); , (counsel were informed of the jury note’s contents but were not allowed to see the note or to make a record of the inci
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
We find that appellant’s , , , is misplaced.
State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Corrales 588 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Robin 562 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Robin 562 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977