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. Lacquey, 571 P.2d 1027.

31 citing documents.

  • State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (affirming the denial of a motion for mistrial where testimony of witness who failed to appear at trial was cumulative).
  • State v. Cecil 36 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
    In order to carry its burden, the state must prove that the defendant “made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing, that ‘a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.’ ” , ( , 283 P. 711, 715 (1929)).
  • State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Lopez 762 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1988
    To make this showing, the state “must prove that the defendant made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing, that ‘a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.’ ” , , 283 P. 711, 715 (1929).
  • State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Kreps 706 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1985
    To make this showing, the state “must prove that the defendant made a decision to kill prior to the act of killing, that ‘a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.’ ” , , 283 P. 711, 715 (1929).
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
    See Pittman, supra; , (the “random, violent and indiscriminate attack upon the victim, rather than the deliberate infliction of injuries calculated to result in death ____” could support a verdict of second degree murder but not first degree.).
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
    Northern California Pharmaceutical Association v. United States, 306 F.2d 379 (9th Cir.), cert.
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
    In addition, there is “no indication that this testimony would influence the outcome of the trial or would otherwise be helpful to the defendant.”
  • State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Distinguished State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Foster 589 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Foster 589 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978