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. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38.

89 citing documents.

  • Korzep v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    While conceding that hearsay testimony can support an indictment, , the petitioner urges us to adopt the viewpoint embraced by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hearsay before a grand jury should be limited to those occasions “when direct testimony is unavailable or when it is demonstrably inconvenient to summon witnesses able to testify to facts f
  • State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Kamin 725 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Kamin 725 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1986
    Its duty is to determine “whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.” , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bowling 726 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Savant 705 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Savant 705 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Tims 693 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
  • Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II 678 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Coconino Cty. Superior Ct., Div. II 678 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
    J. Weinstein and M. Berger, 4 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 801(d)(2)(e)[01], p. 166-67 (1981).
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Nelson v. Roylston 669 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Nelson v. Roylston 669 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    our supreme court stated: “The duty of a grand jury is to decide whether probable cause exists and that probable cause determination may only be challenged by a motion alleging that the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right or that an insufficient number of grand jurors concurred in
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
    2646 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972)
  • State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    While there is some doubt as to whether the information was in fact guilt negating, P.2d 38 (Supreme Court 1980) that: The contention that a grand jury must consider all exculpatory evidence misreads the grand jury’s primary function of determining whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the individual being investigated was the one who committed it.
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
    presented an analogous situation to the case at bar in that the witness’ current address was withheld over objection.