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. McLoughlin, 652 P.2d 531.

45 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
  • State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶42 In arguing the superior court was required to grant his motion for mistrial
  • State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The jury was properly instructed to use their common sense, -63, ¶ 13 (App. 2013) ( n.2 (1982), and State v. Manning, 224 N.W.2d 232, 236 (Iowa 1974)), and “[t]he remarks in the prosecutor’s closing argument served only to call the attention of the jurors to matters which they were justified in considering in determining their verdict,” Jones, 109 Ariz. at 380 (citing State v. Randolph, 99 Ariz.
  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    -61 & 461 n.2, -34 & 534 n.2 (1982).
  • State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    (identification reliable notwithstanding short duration of observation where witnesses “had a reason to have their attentions riveted on [the suspect]”); Trujillo, (reliability established where witness had only seconds to view defendant but “her att
  • State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    even though trial court incorrectly instructed jury as a matter of law that stun gun was deadly weapon, and even if stun gun was not found to be a deadly weapon, “whether or 9 not the repeated use of a stun gun can cause serious bodily injury is an issue the jury can resolve without the necessity of expert testimony”); n.2, n.2 (1982) (jurors may rely on own common sense and experience); State v. Manning, 224 N.W.2d 232, 236 (Iowa 1974) (“‘Jurors are not expected to lay aside matters of common k
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
    See, 295, 16 (1988) (jury foreman submitted affidavit and testified that two jurors consulted outside sources and shared information); -61, -34 (1982) (during deliberations “one juror was told by an unidentified third party that if appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity, he would go free”).
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    the supreme court adhered to its earlier statement in Peats , observing: “The jury ha[s] an obligation of finding the defendant guilty, not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity---- What happens] after their verdict [is] not their concern.”
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
    -62 , -35 (1982) (defendant not entitled to instruction on disposition where an outside party told juror that defendant would be set free if acquitted by reason of temporary insanity and defendant requested disposition instruction; “disposition of a defendant ...
  • State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Aguilar 818 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Aguilar 818 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
    the court found that an instruction failed to cure the prejudice caused by extraneous information being given to the jury.
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Under Rule 24.1(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may grant a new trial if jurors “receiv[e] evidence not properly admitted during the trial____” In denying the motion for new trial, , : It must be remembered that the rule applies only when the jury received information from an outside source during the course of the trial or during deliberations.
  • 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
    -61 , -34 (1982), the court stated: “A new trial may be granted whenever a juror commits misconduct by ‘[receiving evidence not properly admitted during the trial.’ Ariz.R.Crim.P.
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
    up identification is admissible if the identification is reliable.” A reliable show-up identification is admissible at trial because “[s]uch a procedure allows the police to either have the culprit identified while the witness has a fresh mental picture of him or her or else release an innocent person and continue searching for the culprit before he or she escapes detection.”
  • State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984