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. Poland, 645 P.2d 784.

101 citing documents.

  • State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    (because the victims were shot execution style after the robbery, the murders were neither unexpected nor accidental); , (drowning of Purolator guards after the robbery).
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
    (drowning Purolator guards after robbery); , (shooting victims to facilitate escape).
  • State v. Buccini 810 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Buccini 810 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
    Our discussion in State v. Poland (Poland I), , resolves the issue.
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
    aff'd., 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Stevens 764 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Stevens 764 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    This caused a “little flash.” Appellant asks us to reverse, , in which the court held that admission into evidence of weapons not connected with the crime charged can be prejudicial and can constitute reversible error.
  • State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    The juror’s statement here did not involve extrinsic evidence pertaining to the very case under deliberation, , nor did it involve the possible penalty, see State v. McLoughlin, supra.
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
    see also United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677 (D.C.Cir.1979).
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
    (Poland I), we reversed defendant Patrick Poland’s convictions for two counts of first degree murder with sentences of death and remanded for a new trial.
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Aune 363 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
    (drowning Purolator guards after robbery); State v. Gretzler, supra, (defendants committed murders “to obtain a substitute car in which they could continue their flight”); State v. Tison, supra, (killings committed to secure a vehicle in which assailants could continue their flight.)
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Rule 24.1(d), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
    (drowning Purolator guards after robbery); State v. Gretzler, supra, (defendants committed the murders “to obtain a substitute car in which they could continue their flight”); , cert.
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
    See rule 24.1(c)(3)(i); -85 , -800 (1982).
  • State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
    -76 , -91 (1982) (evidence of premeditation in Yavapai County sufficient to support venue under A.R.S.
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983
    State v. Gretzler, supra
  • State v. Gerlaugh 659 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
    When a case falls within Rule 24.-l(c)(3Xi), “the defendant is entitled to a new trial if it cannot be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict.”
  • State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    (1982), has indicated that A.R.S.
  • Kirby v. Rosell 648 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982