DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greenawalt, 624 P.2d 828.

111 citing documents.

  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
    at 244 ¶ 7; (recognizing implicit waiver of the right to remain silent); (recognizing implicit waiver of the right to be present at trial).
  • State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Every criminal defendant “has a constitutional right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury.” see also U.S. Const. amend.
  • State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶13 A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury but is not entitled to “any one particular jury.”
  • State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, (waiver of right to counsel); ¶ 24 (App. 2019) (waiver of the right to conflict- free counsel); (waiver of right to remain silent); see also Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404 (1977) (observing that “the proper standard t
  • State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Payne, 233 Ariz. at 500, ¶¶ 32–33 (explaining the court repeatedly “admonished the jury to avoid coverage and report any exposure,” and the defendant failed to show the jurors failed to comply with that admonition); ¶¶ 25–26 (2008) (same); Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 632–33 (same); –63 (1981) (holding a defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice from publicity absent a showing jurors disobeyed the trial court’s admonition not to view any media coverage).
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    6 STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court ¶18 A defendant has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury, but he is not entitled to a “particular jury.”
  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶14 A defendant “has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury.”
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶15 The burden is on the party challenging the jury panel to show that the panel selection was a “material departure from the requirements of law.”
  • State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    which had found no reversible error in a trial judge’s instruction on conspiracy in a felony murder case.
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
    This court has indicated that “[a]n examination of the jurors, through voir dire process, is an effective means by which to determine the effects or influence of pretrial publicity on the jurors.” , see also Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 406 , 844 P.2d at 573 (court conducted individual voir dire of those prospective jurors who had prior knowledge).
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
  • Evanchyk v. Stewart 47 P.3d 1114 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
    307 ¶ 44, , 362 ¶ 44 (2000) ( , , ).
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    See State v. McMurtrey (McMurtrey II), , ( , ).
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    (“An accused has a constitutional right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury.”).
  • Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    1 Under Rule 18.4(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“AR.S.”), the party challenging the jury panel “has the burden of showing that the panel’s selection constituted or was the result of a ‘material departure from the requirements of law.’ ”
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
    110 , 130 L.Ed.2d 57 (1994); , (defendant must show what was to be investigated and why it was believed to be material), cert.
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    A defendant may assert a constitutional right and then subsequently waive it, but “the state has a heavy burden to show such waiver once the right has been asserted.” , , cert.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    207 , 98 L.Ed.2d 158 (1987); , , cert.