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. Miller, 585 P.2d 244.

37 citing documents.

  • State v. Ruiz-Solis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (“In tailoring a sentence to an individual, the trial judge should consider not only the circumstances of the offense but also the character and past conduct of a defendant, so that the punishment may be set in accordance with defendant’s general character and the nature of the crime committed.”); see also
  • State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    The defendant attempts to avoid the presumption that "[m]atters not included in the record on appeal will be presumed to support the action of the trial court,” , on the basis that his trial counsel was unaware that the court reporter was not recording the polling.
  • State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Crum 722 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Crum 722 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Thurlow 712 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Thurlow 712 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Shattuck 684 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Shattuck 684 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Marquez 660 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    In matters of a fundamental nature, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury on his own motion, even if not requested by the defense, and failure to instruct the jury on a matter vital to the rights of the defendant creates fundamental error, [citation omitted]
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
    P.2d 774 (1980), , suggest the presence of fundamental error where no cautionary instruction has been given and where overwhelming evidence of guilt is absent.
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    as in this case, the defendant voluntarily introduced the fact that he had a prior conviction and thereafter failed to request a limiting instruction.
  • State v. Scrivner 611 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Scrivner 611 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    In sentencing, “the trial judge should consider not only the circumstances of the offense but also the character and past conduct of a defendant, so that the punishment may be set in accordance with defendant’s general character and the nature of the crime committed.”