Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wiley, 698 P.2d 1244.

71 citing documents.

State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Sommer 745 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1987
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1987
(Feldman, J., specially concurring).
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT (MARICOPA CTY.) 753 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT (MARICOPA CTY.) 753 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
at 838 , 13 L.Ed.2d at 775
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
r the first time on appeal is generally waived, , we think it would be unfair to suggest that any attorney, or a defendant representing himself, should have been aware of the grounds for objecting to the exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude members of a minority race from a -37 , 698 P.2d *82 1244, 1254-56 (1985)
State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
This is not a case where the samples were available for defendant’s examination, , and the defense “fails in a timely fashion to avail itself of the evidence [such that] subsequent deterioration of the evidence attributable to the passage of time cannot be said as a matter of law to be attributable to the prosecution.” People v. Newsome, 136 Cal.App.3d 992, 1000
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The issue raised by appellant regarding the state’s
State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985