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. Ramirez, 569 P.2d 201.

70 citing documents.

  • State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “Absent a showing of prejudice to the appellant, this court will not find a trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions to amount to an abuse of discretion.”
  • Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
    error occurred, the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record.”); -66, -08 (1977) (finding no error when the record as a whole supported the trial court’s finding that defendant’s waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary).
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
    (concluding admission of victim's hearsay statement did not require reversal, in part, because the court instructed the jury to disregard the statement).
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    For example, , the defendant’s statement made just before his wife’s murder, “that some man was fooling around with his wife and that if he found out who it was, he would kill him,” was admissible because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show (the defendant’
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    (error to disclose to prosecutor “certain statements of the appellant’s in [the psychiatrist’s] report which should have been excised”).
  • State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
  • Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    We do not depart from our traditional rule that “[m]isconduct alone will not cause reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel.” Grant, 133 Ariz. at 457 , 652 P.2d at 530 , ( , ).
  • State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, , and its refusal to grant a motion for mistrial will be reversed only if the conduct urged as grounds for mistrial was palpably improper and clearly injurious.
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
    796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980); -64 , -06 (1977).
  • Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
  • Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
    See Rule 11.4; , (error for physician to testify as to statements made by defendant during examination)
  • State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    see also Rule 23.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
    vacated on other grounds, 409 U.S. 815 , 93 S.Ct.
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
  • Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
    This rule has most recently been expressed in the following words: “Misconduct alone will not cause reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Sanchez 659 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Cannon 650 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Cannon 650 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1982
    “Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel.”
  • State v. Thibeault 639 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Thibeault 639 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Torres 620 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Torres 620 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980