Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Marquez, 558 P.2d 692.

34 citing documents.

State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶14 “[A] motion for mistrial made by a defendant ordinarily will remove any bar to reprosecution except in circumstances ‘attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching.’” (quoting United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 607 (1976))
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶22 The declaration of a mistrial negates “the defendant’s ‘valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.’” United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 606 (1976) (citations omitted); -42 (1976).
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(explaining double jeopardy bars re-prosecution of a defendant who successfully seeks a mistrial due to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching); ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (same).
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
-13 , -91 (App.1996) ("[A] double jeopardy issue is not ripe’ until the defendant is prosecuted following a mistrial.”)
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611, 96 S. Ct. 1075, 1081 (1976); 694 (1976).
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions.”
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
See, e.g., Milanovich, 303 F.2d at 630 ; , (“where the reference to the [polygraph] examination does not prejudice the defendant, there is no reversible error”).
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
McLaughlin v. Fahringer 723 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1986
McLaughlin v. Fahringer 723 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1986
1075, 1079 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976); -542 , -694 (1976).
Pool v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1984
Pool v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1984
State v. Marquez , , 542 , , 694 (1977).
State v. Wilson 658 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Wilson 658 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
505 , or (3) to provoke a mistrial and obtain another, more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant, see State v. Ballinger, supra
State v. Way 631 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Way 631 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
the Arizona Supreme Court applied *359 Dinitz.
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
1573 , 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962)
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Consent, in the absence of intentional prosecutorial misconduct or other extraordinary circumstances, removes the bar of double jeopardy, , State v. Shaw, 6 Ariz.App.