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. McDaniel, 665 P.2d 70.

170 citing documents.

  • 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
    (trial court’s ex parte communication to jurors not prejudicial because it merely restated jury instruction).
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    3440 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982); , (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Generally, a defendant has a right to compel the attendance of witnesses whose testimony is “both material and favorable to the defense.”
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -93 , -75 (1983) (purpose of voir dire is to unveil juror’s prejudice so parties can exercise intelligent peremptory and causal strikes).
  • 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
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    the court held that if “a witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions, then that witness may be totally excused without violating an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.” Id.
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Rich 907 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1995
    -07 , -05 (1983); , cert.
  • State v. McAnulty 909 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. McAnulty 909 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (whether to permit the state to call a witness who has indicated he -will refuse to testify is within trial court’s discretion); , (defendant is not denied Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process when trial judge with “extensive knowledge of the ease” precludes defense witness who can legitimately invoke Fifth Amendment).
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
    869, 875 , 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (applying the rule of Lockett v. Ohio that the “sentencer in capital punishment cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor”); , (trial court must consider any relevant aspect of a defendant’s character), cert.
  • State v. Hershberger 885 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hershberger 885 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Maldonado 889 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Maldonado 889 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    After continued detailed questioning of each counsel, « , to exclude Valdez from testifying.
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
    Defendant also argues that notwithstanding Tison, , prevents a defendant from being sentenced to death under the Arizona Constitution if the defendant merely displayed a reckless indifference to human life in committing felony murder.
  • Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    under the prosecutor’s control.” See, , 665 * (notes of private investigator hired by co-defendant not in prosecutor’s possession or control); , (FBI not deemed to be an agency under the state prosecutor’s control); Kevil, 111 Ariz. at 243 , 527 P.2d at 288 (prosecutio
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    (“It has long been the law in Arizona that failure to object to an offer of evidence is a waiver of any ground of complaint against its admission.”).
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    and agreed that when a jury is instructed on both felony and premeditated murder and returns a general verdict of guilty of first degree murder, the Enmund requirements are not satisfied.
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    (defendant did not create grave risk of danger to others or commit murder in a cruel, heinous or depraved manner and no other aggravating circumstances were present); , (insufficient evidence that defendant intended to kill victim who was beaten and locked in trunk of car); , (substantial mental impairment due to drug addiction, neurological problems, and brain damage; vulnerability to influence; lack of prior re
  • State v. Tison 774 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Tison 774 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1989