Cited by

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

165 citing documents.

State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
P. 13.4(A)); -41 , -56 (1980) (finding that the trial court's failure to abide by Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269, 273, 274 (9th Cir.1972) (defendant in capital case had unwaivable constitutional right to be present when tape-recorded instructions replayed for jury); , (defendant had right to be present when testimony reread to jury); , -41 , -56 (1980) (“The general rule in Arizona is that reversible error occurs when a trial judge communicates with jurors after they have retired to deliberate, unless defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present.”).
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“The general rule in Arizona is that reversible error occurs when a trial judge communicates with jurors after they have retired to deliberate, unless defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present.” -41 , -56 (1980) (footnote omitted).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
1426 , 113 L.Ed.2d 478 (1991); , , cert.
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
(citing State v. Knapp, 114 Ariz. at 543 , 562 P.2d at 716 ; , , cert.
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
1426 , 113 L.Ed.2d 478 (1991); -41 , -56 , cert.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
*333 Defendant relies on State v. Mata, where we reaffirmed our adherence to the principle that “[i]t is constitutionally impermissible for a prosecutor or a trial judge to comment on a defendant’s failure to testify.” , cert.
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
364 , 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981); -42 , -57 , cert.
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
(death penalty upheld when trial' court found no mitigating circumstances and found aggravating circumstances of prior convictions punishable by life imprisonment, offense committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner and prior conviction involving violence); , (death penalty upheld when no mitigating circumstances found and aggravating circumstances were prior conviction punisha *547 ble by life imprisonment and heinous, cruel or depraved), cert.
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
he fifth amendment because they referred to defendant’s conduct and demeanor rather than to his failure to testify)- Furthermore, for us to find a constitutional violation, the comment on defendant’s silence must be an adverse one; “it must support an unfavorable inference against the defendant and, therefore, operate as a penalty imposed for exercising a constitutional privilege.”
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986