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. Cook, 596 P.2d 374.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
    at 260, 689 P.2d at 519; see also State v. Cook, 122 Ariz. 539, 541, (permitting withdrawal of an allegation of a prior conviction in 8 order to lower defendant’s maximum exposure); State v. Thompson, 139 Ariz. 133, 134, (App. 1983
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Our cases have either found that the twelve-person jury was not required and affirmed the convictions and sentences, see Prince, 142 Ariz. at 259 , 689 P.2d at 518 ; , Price, 218 Ariz. at 316, ¶ 20 , 183 P.3d at 1284 ; ¶ 18 , Thompson , 139 Ariz. at 134, 677 P.2d at 297 ; or that a twelve-person jury was required in which case a new trial has always been ordered notwithstanding the fact
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    Prince, 142 Ariz. at 259 , 689 P.2d at 518 ; State v. Henley, 141 * , 541, , Thompson , 139 Ariz. at 134, 677 P.2d at 297 ; Fancy, 139 Ariz. at 78 , 676 P.2d at 1136 .
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    Prince, 142 Ariz. at 259 , 689 P.2d at 518 ; , , , Thompson , 139 Ariz. at 134, 677 P.2d at 297 ; Fancy, 139 Ariz. at 78 , 676 P.2d at 1136 .
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (no right to twelve-member jury when state modified allegations of prior convictions “before the beginning of trial so that only one prior conviction was alleged”); , (twelve-person jury not required when state dismissed allegation of prior conviction at close of defendant’s case); , (eight-member jury properly decided case after trial court reduced original theft charge to attempted theft before submitt
  • State v. Thorne 971 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Thorne 971 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (amendment of theft charge to prevent increasing the maximum potential sentence after trial began, but prior to submission to the jury, does not require reversal) (App.1983); , State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Luque 829 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    This court stated: Unlike the facts in State v. Cook, supra [ , ] the court’s action in this case allowed an eight person jury to actually deliberate on the fate of a defendant who was, at *201 the time the jury was deliberating, faced with the possibility of a term of imprisonment for more than thirty years.
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
    where we held that the trial court had the discretion to permit the state to withdraw an allegation of a prior conviction to reduce the potential maximum sentence to less than thirty years so that an eight-member jury could properly hear the case.
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
    Accord, , (court held it was proper to allow the state to withdraw allegation of a prior conviction at the close of defendant’s case, thereby reducing defendant’s possible sentence to less than thirty years).
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    and State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Fancy 676 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Fancy 676 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    the court held that a mistrial was not necessary where a similar error was discovered prior to submission of the case to the jury.
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980