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. Smith, 599 P.2d 187.

70 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 638 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Smith 638 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    We have held, however, “that the trial court’s rulings on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear and manifest error,” , and that the facts will be viewed in a manner most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
  • State v. Rogowski 634 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Rogowski 634 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1981
    Rule 17.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
    Rules of Criminal Procedure] to disclose such information not in its possession or under its control if the state has better access to the information; if the defendant shows that it has made a good faith effort to obtain the information without success; and if the information has been specifically requested by the defendant.”
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
    State v. Powers, 96 Idaho 833
  • State v. Piller 628 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Piller 628 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 626 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1981
    yet we found no such outrageous conduct there.
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
    § 13-1673(B), to conduct a public opinion poll for the purpose of substantiating a claim that prejudicial pretrial publicity necessitates a
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980