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. Hutton, 694 P.2d 216.

26 citing documents.

  • 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
    ¶18 Turning first to the allegation of bullying and retaliation, we note that “[p]ressure from other jurors, generally, will not serve as the basis for a mistrial.”
  • State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
    at ¶¶ 28, 30 (finding no Sixth Amendment violation when defendant “never suggested that the amendment affected, let alone prejudiced, his litigation strategy, trial preparation, examination of witnesses, or argument” and did not “request a trial continuance or recess”); –90, –20 (1985) (holding that a defendant on trial for first-degree murder is on notice that he may be convicted of provocation manslaughter).
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
    *440 ¶ 51 , involved lesser-included offenses of first degree murder.
  • State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    (defining premeditation as a “length of time permitting reflection”); , (same); , (same); , (same); , (same), , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder formed after deliberation and reflection.”); State v. Vickers (Vickers II)
  • State v. Cecil 36 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ¶ 25 Turning to the prior interpretations, a clear pronouncement of the meaning our supreme court has placed on the “any length of time to permit reflection”
  • 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
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    State v. Cipriano, 24 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Romanosky 782 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Marchesano 783 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Gaydas 766 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Gaydas 766 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    On appeal we view the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, , and we resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.
  • State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
    defendant was on probation for a prior felony and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to A.R.S.