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. Madison, 560 P.2d 405.

25 citing documents.

  • ROBBINS v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. 2026
    ¶32 This Court first articulated Arizona’s –24 (1977), drawing on the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 463–64 (1973).
  • ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶33 In these circumstances, a court abuses its discretion by granting a mistrial without the defendant’s consent while failing to consider the defendant’s interest in proceeding with trial, see Dickinson, 242 Ariz. at 125, ¶ 20; Kiger, 194 Ariz. at 526–27, ¶¶ 9–10, unless proceeding with trial “would make reversal on appeal a certainty,” (quoting Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 464 (1973)); Aguirre, __ Ariz. at __, ¶ 43.
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Seven years before Henley , , the court dealt with this same issue but was not required to decide it.
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
    For example, , that a mistrial was properly declared where this same kind of error was discovered after the jury had returned its verdict.
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
    See, , , State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    where a mistrial was declared when the error was discovered after the jury verdicts.
  • State v. Fancy 676 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Fancy 676 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    our supreme court held that the trial court properly declared a mistrial where a similar error was discovered after the jury returned its verdict.
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    111, 115 , , , *541 408 (1977).
  • State v. Buffum 610 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Buffum 610 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
    as authority for this position.
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    cf. State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.