DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Goldsmith, 542 P.2d 1098.

56 citing documents.

  • State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ourt said, “[t]he finding of voluntary absence, and, therefore, the existence of a waiver of the right to be present, is basically a question of fact” and “[w]e will not upset a trial court’s finding of voluntary absence, therefore, absent an abuse of discretion.” (quoting Brewer v. Raines, 670 F.2d 117, 120 (9th Cir. 1982)); (applying abuse of discretion standard of review).
  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to rebut the findings of the trial court that his absence at trial was voluntary.); (No abuse of discretion when the court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on voluntariness when the defendant was out
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See State v. Goldsmith , , 400, , 1099 (1975) (rejecting, as "completely without merit," State's argument "that the appeal should be dismissed because [the defendant] had not been apprehended as of the date that his appeal was filed"); State v. Bolding , , 88 ¶ 20, , 285 (App. 2011) (concluding statute
  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    6 Currently, it remains clear that an accused may waive the constitutional right to counsel, , the right to appear and defend in person, , the right to confront witnesses, , the right to a jury trial, , cert.
  • State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Floyd v. Superior Court 657 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Floyd v. Superior Court 657 P.2d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    held that the constitutional right to appeal will not be denied to an appellant, tried and sentenced in absentia, even though he has not been apprehended at the time his notice of appeal was filed.
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    holding that the constitutional right to appeal in Arizona will not be denied where an appellant is not apprehended as of the date his appeal is filed.
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
    As the Court of Appeals observed in its order, “it is well-settled in this jurisdiction that lie detector evidence is admissible only by stipulation, , and evidence of a defendant’s willingness to take a lie detector test is not admissible.
  • State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Tudgay 623 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tudgay 623 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1981
    “We will not thus defeat the entire purpose of Rule 9.1.”
  • State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Evans 606 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Evans 606 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
    State v. Reim, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
    Except for fundamental error, P.2d 1098 (1975), opposing counsel must timely object to any erroneous or improper statements made during closing argument or waive his right to the objection.
  • State v. Cook 575 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Cook 575 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    Rule 9.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Molina 573 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Molina 573 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    The Valdez holding was expressly reaffirmed as recently as 1975 , .
  • State v. Camino 574 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Camino 574 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Bohn 570 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1977
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9.1, and comment thereto
  • State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
    Conceding that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in Arizona except by stipulation, , appellant urges us to join what he asserts to be a national movement toward admitting polygraph testimony without regard to stipulations.
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Marahrens 560 P.2d 1211 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Marahrens 560 P.2d 1211 Ariz. 1977