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. Tison, 633 P.2d 335.

205 citing documents.

  • State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 34 (2006); (stating that “[i]ssues concerning the suppression of evidence which were not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal”).
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See id.; (“Unless there are objective indications of jurors’ prejudice, we will not presume its existence”).
  • Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
    State v. Fierro, 166 Ariz. 539, 550
  • State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
    The trial court also instructed jurors that the “mere presence of bystanders” is insufficient to support the finding of an F.3 aggravator, id., and that actual intent to kill the bystander precludes an F.3 finding
  • State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
    (stating “[i]ssues concerning the suppression of evidence which were not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal”) ( P.2d 1067 (1977)).
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    273 U.S. 77, 80-81, 47 S. Ct. 300, 301, 71 L. Ed. 545, 547 (1927) (valid indictment “shall advise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation in order that he may meet it and prepare for trial, and after judgment, be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of a further prosecution for the same offense”); (defendant has fundamental right to reasonable notice of specific charge); State v. O’Brien, (duplicitous charges prohibited in order to give defendant notice and to avoid “cons
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    as not preserved for our review”); (Even though Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), had not yet been decided at time of defendant’s trial and constituted “a significant change in the law,” it was not “so novel an idea as to excuse the defendant’s failure to make a timely objection.”); -36, -45 (1981) (defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims not raised “in the trial court are waived on appeal”).
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
    ¶ 48 According to the state, this court has consistently held that “[tjhere is no requirement that the defendant receive notice of how the State will prove his responsibility for the alleged offense.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • 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
    (constitutional claims waived by failing to make the argument below)
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
    d at 347-48 (upholding trial court’s refusal to strike juror who said news reports would haunt his memory but he could decide case based solely on evidence admitted at trial); Comer, 165 Ariz. at 423-24 , 799 P.2d at 343-44 (finding no error in refusing to strike juror who said defendant was probably guilty, but later stated he could try to form a final opinion based on evidence); , (upholding trial court’s decision not to excuse juror who expressed opinion that defendant was likely guilty, but
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    (“Unless there are objective indications of jurors’ prejudice, we will not presume its existence.”); , (appellant had burden of showing that remarks of excused juror prejudiced others); State v. Davis, 137 Ari
  • State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
    (indigent defendant must show special need in requesting a transcript of co-defendant’s trial), cert.
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
    1749 , 90 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986); , cert.
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
    See State v. (Ricky) Tison, , cert.
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
    See Arnett, 158 Ariz. at 18 , 760 P.2d at 1067 ; , cert.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    See Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 633-34 , 832 P.2d at 650-51 ; -35 , -44 (1981), cert.