Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. LaGrand, 733 P.2d 1066.

133 citing documents.

Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (“When a defendant has repeatedly claimed ‘irreconcilable conflict’ with a series of attorneys, the court may deny a motion for yet another lawyer where the orderly administration of justice so requires.”); (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to remove counsel in light of lengthy pretrial 6 STATE v. YOUNAN Decision of the Court delay and the fact that “counsel had already been changed once”); Daniels v. W
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n of counsel is necessary, including “whether an irreconcilable conflict exists between counsel and the accused, and whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict; the timing of the motion; inconvenience to witnesses; the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and trial; the proclivity of the defendant to change counsel; and quality of counsel.” -87 (1987).
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Accordingly, “a request for new counsel should be examined with the rights and interest of the defendant in mind tempered by exigencies of judicial economy.”
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
VI; see also Ariz. Const. art 2, § 24.
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
at 187 ¶ 31, 119 P.3d at 454 (–87, –70 (1987)).
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. LaGrand (LaGrand I), -87, -70 (1987).
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
“[A] defendant is ‘entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by evidence.’” Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 343 ¶ 60, 111 P.3d at 385 ( ).
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
-47, -62 (1997); -87, -70 (1987); see also Moody, 192 Ariz. at 508- 09, ¶ 21, 968 P.2d at 581-82.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
A defendant is “entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by evidence.”
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Henry, 189 Ariz. at 546-47 , 944 P.2d at 61 -62 (-87 , -70 (1987)).
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, e.g., State v. *54 LaGrand, , (treating appellant’s pro se motion to remove his counsel as a motion for substitute counsel).
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
Therefore, he claims, it was appropriate for the jury to consider whether he “was the perpetrator or was merely present.” ¶ 35 A trial court should instruct “on any theory reasonably supported by evidence.” , see also United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984) (requiring instruction be given “if there is evidence upon which the *65 jury could rationally sustain the defense”).
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
at 591 , 858 P.2d at 1194 (-87 , -70 (1987)).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
tempered by exigencies of judicial economy.”