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. Chaney, 686 P.2d 1265.

86 citing documents.

  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    The continued viability of Wasko , however
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
    521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); , we need not address that issue here because we find the evidence admissible under the identity exception.
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
    -10 , -80 (1984) (in murder trial, evidence that defendant committed a burglary and stole a truck admissible to complete the story of the crime).
  • State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
    With respect to pre-trial publicity, no presumption of prejudice exists unless it is so pervasive and extensive that it creates a “carnival atmosphere.” , (citing Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
    We also pointed out that some of the proposed questions were similar to a , in which the trial court had asked: Are any of you acquainted with anyone who has been treated for having a men *203 tal disorder, a neurological disorder, or a brain disorder?
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Rankovich 765 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Befford 754 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Befford 754 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1988
    Either where the publicity is “outrageous,” Mulligan, 126 Ariz. at 214 , 613 P.2d at 1270 , or where it pervades the court proceedings to the extent they take on a “carnival atmosphere,” , prejudice is presumed.
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
    State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. at 391 , 626 P.2d at 121 ; 17 A.R.S.
  • Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
    Rule 18.5(d) provides that the trial court “shall conduct the voir dire examination, putting to the jurors all appropriate questions requested by counsel.” -04 , -74 (1984).
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
    E.g., State v. Villafuerte, supra; , , cert.
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984