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. Raffaele, 550 P.2d 1060.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See State v. 4 see also Anderson, 447 U.S. at 409 (concluding a prosecutor may demonstrate inconsistencies between descriptions of an event that “involve ‘silence’ insofar as [each] omits facts included in the other version”).
  • State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Belvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶21 Moreover, a defendant who speaks voluntarily has not remained silent, Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408 (1980), and a prosecutor may therefore discuss statements a defendant has voluntarily made without commenting on the accused’s right to remain silent, (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor violated his Fifth Amendment rights by commenting on his failure to give a complete explanation at the scene and concluding “the prosecutor could not have been commenting on the ac
  • State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Accordingly, a prosecutor may comment on statements a Mirandized defendant has made to arresting officers without “commenting on the accused’s right to remain silent.” (“When a defendant is not induced into silence by Miranda warnings, [] or waives his rights by answering questions after such warnings are given, due process is not implicated.”).
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 602, 858 P.2d at 1205 (“[D]uring closing arguments counsel may summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.”); (holding that a prosecutor’s statements during closing argument regarding defendant’s post-Miranda failure to give police the exculpatory explanation of criminal conduct that defendant testified to at trial “were permissible comment[s] on the creditability of
  • State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
  • Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
  • Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
    This, of course, is true “unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning should control.” , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    (defendant testified to self-defense at trial; was impeached with failure to mention self-defense during post-arrest statement); , (prosecutor’s comments on defendant’s credibility permissible); -29 , -45 (1973) (no fundamental error in asking defendant if he had told •anyone besides arresting officer of his innocence).
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Carpenter 684 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Carpenter 684 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
    Appellant’s express invocation of his rights, as well as his failure to make a complete statement or to answer particular questions, distinguishes this case from
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Carter 601 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Carter 601 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Schoner 591 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Schoner 591 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Castregon v. Huerta 580 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1978
  • Castregon v. Huerta 580 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    the court stated: “Appellant’s final assertion is that the prosecutor, in his closing argument, violated appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights by commenting on his failure to give a complete explanation at the scene.
  • State v. Dykes 562 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Dykes 562 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977