Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stewart, 676 P.2d 1108.
- State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Sueing
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The court “must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case” and “[n]o one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations.” Id.; (citing Allen in support of applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to the trial court’s decision to shackle a defendant with a history of violence and escape).
- State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Francois
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[T]he underlying principal of Rule 15 is adequate notification to the opposition of one’s case-in-chief in return for reciprocal discovery so that undue delay and surprise may be avoided at trial by both sides.”
- State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Moton
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The underlying principle of Rule 15 is adequate notification to the opposition of one’s case-in-chief in return for reciprocal discovery so that undue delay and surprise may be avoided at trial by both sides.”
- State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Torres
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[T]he underlying principal of Rule 15 is adequate notification to the opposition of one’s case-in-chief in return for reciprocal discovery so that undue delay and surprise may be avoided at trial by both sides.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
-
State v. Cruz
181 P.3d 196
Ariz. 2008
(noting that when a defendant objects to restraints, “there must be support in the - 38 - record for the trial court’s decision”).
- State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
- State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
-
State v. McKinney
917 P.2d 1214
Ariz. 1996
1017 , 79 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984); -57 , -12 (1984) (defendant wore leg brace, visible shackles, and was gagged); , (defendant wore leg irons and was heavily guarded).
- Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984