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. Still, 582 P.2d 639.

34 citing documents.

  • In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (“A comment that certain facts brought out by the prosecution are uncontradicted is not objectionable” unless it appears that only the defendant could contradict the state’s evidence).
  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Taking a prosecutor’s comment in context, such comment is considered improper if a jury would naturally and necessarily perceive it to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify at trial, and this includes questions in which the defendant is the only person who could explain or contradict the evidence
  • State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
  • State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
    The State improperly shifts the burden when it implies a duty upon the defendant to prove his innocence or the negation of an element, and otherwise errs when it comments upon the failure of a defendant to testify or present a defense
  • State v. Meeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Meeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    5 STATE v. MEEDS Decision of the Court ¶13 “A comment that certain facts brought out by the prosecution are uncontradicted is not objectionable,” except where “it appears that the defendant is the only one who could explain or contradict the evidence offered by the state.”
  • State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
  • State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
    ¶ 13 (propriety depends on what jury would naturally perceive); State v. Still , , 551, , 641 (1978) (reversing conviction based on what reasonable jury would conclude from prosecutor's comment and gesture).
  • State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    A comment that the prosecution’s evidence is “uncontradicted” is not objectionable unless the defendant “is the only one who could explain or contradict the evidence offered by the state.” (prosecutor’s argument that “everything the officers have said” is “uncontroverted, uncontested” not improper).
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (finding a constitutional violation when the jury would necessarily conclude that the defendant “was the only person who could possibly contradict or explain the State’s evidence” and the 5 STATE v. RAMOS
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    The State may comment that facts in the case are uneontradicted unless the defendant is or appears to be “the only one who could explain or contradict the evidence offered by the state.”
  • State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Nevertheless, we addressed the remaining issues so they would not arise at retrial, and stated: Just as it is generally impermissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, , so it is generally impermissible to use a defendant’s invocation of his Fourth Amendment protections against him, United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351 (9th Cir.1978).
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Just as it is generally impermissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence, , so is it generally impermissible to use a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment protections against him, United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351 (9th Cir.1978).
  • State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    State v. Fuller, supra; United States v. Soulard, supra
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Covington 666 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Covington 666 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the appellants argue that since they were the only persons in the bathroom with the victim, they were the only persons who could have testified that any sexual contacts were consensual and therefor the prosecutor’s comments called the fact that neither appellant testified to the jury’s attention
  • Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Estoppel is not available as a usury defense when both the borrower and the lender know at the time of the loan transaction that it is usurious, , however, the LaBarr opinion acknowledged that most jurisdictions allow estoppel to be asserted against a claim of usury when the lender is innocent and the borrower’s conduct has been fraudulent or deceptive and of such a nature as to satisfy the normal requirements for the assertion of an estop
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978