Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 594 P.2d 514.

50 citing documents.

State v. Fields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
1017 , 79 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984); -57 , -12 (1984) (defendant wore leg brace, visible shackles, and was gagged); , (defendant wore leg irons and was heavily guarded).
State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
(because prosecutor was engaged in another trial, trial court granted 8-day recess after jury was impaneled); , (after jury was impaneled, trial court dismissed jury for 14 days because prosecutor was trying another case).
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hanger 706 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Morse 692 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Distinguished State v. Morse 692 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
see Application of Parham, 6 Ariz.App.
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. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
(defendant committed armed robbery while effecting an escape during a pretrial hearing and shackling defendant was not error); , (sheriff provided information to court concerning prior violent conduct of appellants); , cert.
State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
State v. McGill, supra ; see United States v. Badolato, 701 F.2d 915 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Riola, 694 F.2d 670 (11th Cir.), cert.
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the destruction of an officer’s handwritten notes did not constitute reversible error even where the officer testified that many things which were in his notes were not reflected in his final report.
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
Criticized State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
we declined to follow the Ninth Circuit and found that destruction of rough interview notes taken by a detective did not result in reversible error.
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Blankinship 622 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Criticized State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
the Arizona Supreme Court declined to follow the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit in granting a new trial due to the destruction of an officer’s notes.
State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
see also Rule 8.4(e), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979