Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Murphy, 555 P.2d 1110.

75 citing documents.

Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
10 CARSON V. GENTRY Opinion of the Court prosecutor makes the determination whether to file criminal charges and which charges to file.” (acknowledging that “the executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file”).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(courts have no power to interfere with prosecutor’s exercise of discretion unless prosecutor is “acting illegally or in excess of his powers”).
State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Jose Adrian Agundez-Martinez 540 P.3d 1205 Ariz. 2024
[i]nstitute proceedings before magistrates for the arrest of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of public offenses when the county attorney has information that the offenses have been committed”); (“The duty and discretion to conduct prosecutions for public offenses rests with the county attorney.”).
State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wheaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wheaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Harris v. Mathews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(recognizing that the "duty and discretion to conduct prosecutions for public offenses rests with the county attorney"); see also Arizona Revised Statutes section 11-532(A) (duties of county attorney); 172 (App. 1997) (finding that judge's decision not to issue arr
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶12 The State has the discretion to determine “whether to file criminal charges and which charges to file.” (“The duty and discretion to conduct prosecutions for public offenses rests with the county attorney.”).
In Re BOND FORFEITURE IN COCHISE COUNTY 307 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re BOND FORFEITURE IN COCHISE COUNTY 307 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(court generally cannot interfere with prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in criminal justice system unless acting illegally or in excess of powers).
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
¶19 The trial court correctly observed that the “decision to offer evidence of aggravation or not offer such evidence is the responsibility of the prosecutor.”
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
A court does not have the authority to interfere with the prosecutor’s exercise of his discretion “unless he is acting illegally or in excess of his powers.”
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell 909 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1995
Hirschfeld v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 908 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hirschfeld v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 908 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
(prosecutor has discretion whether to offer aggravating evidence and seek death penalty).
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, NAVAJO COUNTY 884 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, NAVAJO COUNTY 884 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
And, “the courts have no power to interfere with the discretion of the prosecutor unless he is acting illegally or in excess of his powers.”
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(prosecutor may decide whether to present aggravating circumstances at sentencing); , (court, not prosecutor, controls the length of probation).
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Walker 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(trial judge cannot usurp the prosecutor's discretion by reducing a criminal charge before trial); , (trial judge without authority to direct prosecutor to place evidence of aggravating circumstances in evidence).
State v. Walker 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(trial judge cannot usurp the prosecutor’s discretion by reducing a criminal charge before trial); , (trial judge without authority to direct prosecutor to place evidence of aggravating circumstances in evidence).
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
The [trial] court has no authority to interfere with the discretion of the prosecutor in this area.”
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989