Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Butrick, 558 P.2d 908.

56 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Whether waiver was voluntary depends on “the unique circumstances of each case.”
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
¶54 Generally speaking, parties are free to waive any number of rights, even constitutional rights such as the right to appeal, –14 (1946), the right to counsel, –23 (1994), the right to a jury trial, –66 (1976), and the right to be present during criminal proceedings, ¶ 54 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
9 STATE V. MUHAMMAD Opinion of the Court ¶25 supports a heightened competency standard for a jury-trial waiver.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-66 (1976) (recognizing defendants’ right to voluntarily waive a jury trial).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 23, 24
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 23, 24
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
VI; Ariz. Const, art. 2, §§ 23, 24
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(recognizing the distinction between "just a waiver of a jury" and "the waiver of a jury and submission of the entire question of guilt or innocence to the court"); , (rejecting State's argument that "waiver of ju
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
¶34 , , this court held in Smith that the right to a twelve-person jury could only be waived by direct colloquy with the defendant pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.1(B).
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 6 “The right to a jury trial is a fundamental right secured to all persons accused of a crime by the Sixth Amendment of *120 the United States Constitution and, in Arizona, by Article 2, [sections] 23 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution.”
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 9, (waiver of right to counsel); The trial court ultimately ordered a new trial after finding that a factually unsupported portion of “the prosecutor’s argument and [Judge Meehan’s] subsequent response to the jury note combined to deprive [Swoopes] of a fair trial.” For reasons noted above, however, that findin
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
at 338 ¶ 14, 4 P.3d at 393 (citations omitted).); -66 , -11 (1976).
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
See, e.g., State v. Moody, 192 Ariz. 505, ¶ 22, (The waiver of the right to counsel “must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”); (When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial, “the court must always address the defendant personally, pursuant to [Rule] 18.1(b)(1) to ascertain ‘that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.’”); (“[A]
In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
See, , (holding a criminal defendant may knowingly waive the right to be tried by a twelve-member jury); , (holding that although the “right to a jury trial is a fundamental right secured ...
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Just as he could waive his right to a jury trial, , Smith could also waive his right to a twelve-person jury.
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
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. Patton 665 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Patton 665 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Moroyoqui 611 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Moroyoqui 611 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. O'Kelley 570 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. O'Kelley 570 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977