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. McVay, 622 P.2d 9.

85 citing documents.

  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. May 669 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. May 669 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
    1974, 1979-1980 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983)
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    We cannot say, beyond a reasonable 'doubt, , that the litany of testimony all repetitious of the victim’s original story did not influence the jury to convict Martin.
  • State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Distinguished State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    We cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, , that the presumption of knowledge did not influence the jury to convict Forrester.
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
    doubt, had no influence on the verdict of the jury, then we will not'reverse, (citation omitted) The question is not whether, absent the error, there were sufficient facts from which the jury could find the defendant guilty, the question is whether, without this evidence, the appellate court can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have found the defendant guilty.”
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    Although police action was involved here in the seizure of the tapes made by appellant, their introduction into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, , because all that the tapes showed was that appellant engaged in extreme aberrational *547 sexual behavior, which was readily admitted by appellant at trial and was never in dispute.
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
    that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” , ( , ).
  • State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
    The recent case, , presented a similar question.