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. Brown, 602 P.2d 478.

27 citing documents.

  • Karpova v. Icare adult/copperpoint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “A judge must be careful never to act in the dual capacity of judge and advocate.”
  • Barari v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (“A judge must be careful never to act in the dual capacity of judge and advocate.”).
  • State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (“A judge must be careful never to act in the dual capacity of judge and advocate.”).
  • State v. Clarke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Clarke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (“A judge must be careful never to act in the dual capacity of judge and advocate.”).
  • State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Rodrick v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Rodrick v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    at 465, ¶ 28 (quoting McElhanon, 151 Ariz. at 413); (the judge appeared “to act in the dual capacity of judge and advocate” when the judge overruled defendant’s objection to the admissibility of a questionnaire the judge himself brought to the attention of a prosecutor and his supervisor, and when the judge revoked defendant’s bond without a hearing).
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    at 411, 413, 728 P.2d at 281 , 283 ( , ).
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    at 411, 413, 728 P.2d at 281 , 283 ( , ).
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    Judges must be impartial, , and avoid any appearance of partiality
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    Appellant argues that the order was improper and served to place the trial court in the position of being an advocate for the prosecutor
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    For example, , the trial judge reviewed the court file and noted discrepancies in the defendant’s testimony.
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    a case involving a charge of fraudulently obtaining money by a scheme or artifice, a violation of A.R.S.
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
    we reversed a verdict entered after a trial judge had initiated ex parte conversations with a prosecutor concerning possible perjury.
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    A defendant has a “right to trial presided over by a judge who is ‘impartial and free of bias or prejudice.’ ” , ( , ).
  • State v. Knapp 611 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Knapp 611 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1979
    While we have recognized the principle urged upon us as fundamental, , , in our opinion, when scrutinized in context, the commentary of the sentencing authority amounted to little more than an expression of his view of the appropriate punishment based upon the facts before him, and gave no indication of prejudice.