DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Armenta, 541 P.2d 1154.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    § 13-4033(C) and recognizing that requirement as a “constitutional guarantee”); (“In order to find a waiver it must be shown that the defendant had personal notice of the proceeding, that he was aware that he had a right to attend and that he had been informed that the proceeding would go forward in his absence should he fail to appear.”); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • 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
    21 when portions of the record are repeated 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
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    (citing cases); , (citing authority).
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1972)
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
    and conceding that the right to be present is of constitutional dimension, this court found there was insufficient proof of defendant’s intent to waive his right.
  • 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
    853 (1919); Rule 19.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; or requests that portions of the record be repeated, or questions regarding the evidence be answered, , State v. Robin, supra
  • State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Perez 563 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Perez 563 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
    1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); , 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    500 , , : ‘It is firmly established that “[o]ne of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused’s right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Perez 549 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Perez 549 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    : “It is firmly established that ‘[o]ne of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused’s right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial.’ Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct.