DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arnett, 579 P.2d 542.

192 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
    sal in the absence of resulting prejudice.” Cota, 229 Ariz. at 147 ¶ 44; see also Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 (“No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.”); (“Technical errors in jury selection do not require a new trial.”); (“A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair and impartial jury for the trial of his case, but he is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury; the
  • State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶33 Although a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair and impartial jury, “he is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury.”
  • State v. Buffington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Buffington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“Unless there are objective indications of jurors’ prejudice, we will not presume its existence.”); (“[U]nless the record affirmatively shows that .
  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    a fair and impartial jury was not secured.” ().
  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶9 The “specification of punishment for crime is peculiarly a question of legislative policy.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 44 (2008) (citing Ellison, 213 at 126, ¶ 25, ).
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    A “defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair and impartial jury for the trial of his case, but he is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury.” ).
  • State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
    “[S]pecification of punishment for crime is peculiarly a question of legislative policy,” and this Court will presume the constitutionality of a statute “when there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the enactment of a statute.” –48, –52 (1978).
  • State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
    he is not entitled to be tried by any particular jury.” Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 624, 832 P.2d at 641 ( ).
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
  • Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
    The party challenging a statute bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity, , and we resolve all uncertainties in favor of constitutionality.
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    see also Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 538 , 95 S.Ct.
  • Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
    “Violence” has been defined as “the exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse.”
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
    In State v. Arnett, we defined violence as the “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.”
  • State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
    § 13-703(F)(2) only if it involves the use or threat of violence against a person, , according to its statutory definition
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    2027, 2031 , 32 L.Ed.2d 600 (1972) (“[m]isguided laws may still be constitutional”); , (“reasonable, even though debatable, basis” sufficient to uphold statute unless “clearly unconstitutional”).
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996