Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mata, 609 P.2d 48.

165 citing documents.

State v. Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
To be improper, the comment must also be adverse, meaning that it “support[s] an unfavorable inference against the defendant and, therefore, operate[s] as a penalty imposed for exercising a constitutional privilege.” see also Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 338–39 (1978) (“It is clear from even a cursory review of the facts and the square holding of the Griffin case that the Court was there concerned only with adverse comment, whether by the prosecutor or the trial judge—comment by the prosecu
State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
8 STATE v. MEKEEL Opinion of the Court defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present.” –41 (1980).
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“To be constitutionally proscribed, a comment must be adverse; that is, it must support an unfavorable inference against the defendant and, therefore, operate as a penalty imposed for exercising a constitutional privilege.”
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
to comment on a defendant’s failure to testify.”
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
Similarly, we have noted that “a communication between judge and jury outside the presence of defendant and counsel [may be] harmless error.” ( ).
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Specifically, “to be constitutionally improper the comment must (1) be adverse, in that it supports an unfavorable inference against the defendant, and (2) operate as a penalty for defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right.” ( ).
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
“To be constitutionally proscribed, a comment must be adverse; that is, it must support an unfavorable inference against the defendant and, therefore, operate as a penalty imposed for exercising a constitutional privilege.”
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(where evidence admissible in either joint or separate trial, no abuse of discretion to deny severance and permit presentation of evidence); (same).
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 242
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 242
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 242
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 242
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 242
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Mata, 125 Ariz. 233, 240-41, -56 (1980).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
-41, -56 (1980) (trial court contacted counsel and offered opportunity to make record).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008