Cited by

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

192 citing documents.

State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
Although “conditions of incarceration can be so intolerable as to overcome a prisoner’s free will and render a confession involuntary,” the free will is not overborne “where there is evidence of nothing more than uncomfortable surroundings.”
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
Under section 13-703(F)(2), “violence” is defined as the “exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse.”
State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The trial court must be affirmed “unless the record affirmatively shows that such a fair and impartial jury was not secured.”
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
In State v. Arnett, we defined “violence,” as used in § 13-703(F)(2), to be the “exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse.”
State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
and by expressly approving the panel at the conclusion of voir dire.” , (citations omitted); -81 , -27 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct.
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
We have defined “violence” to mean the “exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse.” , (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976 Unabridged)).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
2259 , *571 72 L.Ed.2d 863 (1982)
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
(defining “violence”) (emphasis added).
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We find that Arizona had a rule, , that parties must make objections to the composition of the jury before the trial court impanels the jury and excuses the challenged jurors.
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
As we have *624 previously held, “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; therefore, unless the record affirmatively shows that such a fair and impartial jury was not secured, the conviction must be confirmed.”
State v. Miller 844 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Miller 844 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
(defining “violence” as the “exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse” and holding that the appellant’s prior conviction for the “lewd and lascivious act” of inserting his finger into a five-year-old girl’s vagina, fits within this definition) (citation omitted).
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
we held that “violence,” as used in A.R.S.
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
That term encompasses crimes involving “exertion of any physical force so as to injure or abuse.”
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
(although juror was designated as an alternate because he may have overheard defense investigator discuss the case, defendant was not deprived of a fair and impartial jury notwithstanding that Rule 18.5(h) requ
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984), , (for purposes of reviewing trial court’s determination of the voluntariness of a confession, appellate court looks only to evidence presented at the voluntariness hearing).
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
” 149 Ariz. at 133 , 717 P.2d at 437 .
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
We will not upset the trial court’s determination “absent clear and manifest error.” , ( , ).
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988