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. Roberts, 642 P.2d 858.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶42 In determining whether the superior court coerced a jury’s verdict, this court considers “the actions of the judge and the comments made to the jury based on the totality of the circumstances” and whether “the independent judgment of the jury was displaced.” ¶ 5 (2003); (“What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each case.”).
  • State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ( (Feldman, J., dissenting)).
  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each case.”
  • State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each case.”
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    approved in relevant part
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    7, -14, -32 (App. 1990), approved in relevant part
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    over, “[e]ach of these crimes was established by different acts,” the assault by the beating, and the robbery by the taking of the vehicle, which Mason concedes took place at least “a few minutes later.” , (upholding consecutive sentences for kidnapping and extortion both involving use of gun), vacated in part on other grounds
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
    State - 36 - v. Lautzenheiser, -10, -42 (1994) (suggesting that a single holdout juror may need to be “checked for bruises”); -18, -63 (1982) (Feldman, J., dissenting).
  • State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    “What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each ease.” , (finding judge’s inquiry into the numerical division of the impasse and comment on the large amount of evidence did not result in coercion); -10 , -42 (1994) (finding verdict was coerced when a judge ordered continued deliberation a
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
    (Feldman, J. dissenting) (noting that when inquiry into the numerical division of the jury reveals a single holdout juror the likelihood of coercion increases when the court orders further deliberations).
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    McCrimmon, 187 Ariz. at 172 , 927 P.2d at *419 1301 (“Disclosing the numerical division will not always indicate a coerced verdict.”); McCutcheon, 150 Ariz. at 320 , 723 P.2d at 669
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
    “The test of coereiveness is whether the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors.” , see Lautzenheiser, 180 Ariz. at 9 , 881 P.2d at 341 ; -16 , -61 (1982).
  • State v. Lautzenheiser 881 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Greene 866 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Greene 866 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    approved in part, vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    “Under the totality of the circumstances rule, convictions will be reversed if the cumulative effect of the trial court’s actions had a coercive influence upon the jury.”
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    We will find coercion if “the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    A conviction will be reversed if the “cumulative effect of the trial court’s actions had a coercive influence upon the jury.”
  • State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    approved in part, vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Campbell 706 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Campbell 706 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Hutton 694 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Wussler 679 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1984
    Considering the total circumstances, , the remark or admonition of the trial judge was not coercive.
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982