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. Landrum, 544 P.2d 664.

51 citing documents.

  • State v. Dennis Hyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Dennis Hyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980) (holding that “the term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police[—]other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody[—]that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect” (emphasis added)); (holding that questions about the suspect’s identify were “clearly neutral, nonaccusatory in nature, and in furtherance of prop
  • State v. Garfio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Garfio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Innis, 446 U.S. at 301; (explaining Miranda does not apply to a detective’s “clearly neutral, nonaccusatory” questions “in furtherance of proper preliminary investigation”).
  • State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    (excluded time begins when motion to dismiss filed); , (excluded time for competency hearing begins on date motion filed); , (excluded time begins when special action filed); State ex rel.
  • State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -68 (1976); -75 , -09 (App.1978).
  • State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
    (asking for a suspect’s name is not always an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda); United States v. Poole, 794 F.2d 462, 467 , modified on other grounds, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1986) (determination of whether asking a suspect for his name is an interrogation within the meaning o
  • State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Starcevich 678 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
    at 569 , 570 P.2d at 511
  • State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
    The delay from 22 November until 11 February is excluded time under Rule 8.4(a), since “filing of the motion under Rule 11 effectively stops or suspends the trial of the defendant until his mental competency is established.”
  • State v. Bridges 600 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Bridges 600 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    State v. Small, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Miller 600 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Miller 600 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Heath 592 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Heath 592 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Stambaugh 589 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Stambaugh 589 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    We believe the prosecutor’s , : In determining whether remarks made by counsel in criminal cases are so objectionable as to cause a reversal of the case, we have stated the best rule to be: * * * Do the remarks call to the attention of the jurors matters which they would not be justified in considering in determining
  • State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84357 576 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84357 576 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
    Although in closing argument both counsel have wide latitude, , such an appeal to fear is improper.
  • State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Limited questioning during a reasonable investigatory detention is permissible where the confrontation has not reached the “interrogation stage.” , cf.
  • State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Ceja 546 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1976