DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Andro v. Andro, 401 P.2d 404.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
    v. Armstrong , , 281, , 308 (1968) (stating that "[i]t is the duty of a trial court to hold a hearing as to voluntariness of a statement or confession, if a question as to its voluntariness is raised-either by the attorneys, or one is presented by the evidence" (quoting State v. Goodyear , , 248, ) ); State v. Simoneau , , 7, (stating that "where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, there is no issue
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
  • State v. Peterson 267 P.3d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
    We have said that “[ejach case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial judge for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.”
  • Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    rehearing denied, , Evans v. Evans, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Calhoun 563 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Greer, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dykes 562 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Similarly, , the problem of a defendant’s silence was in issue.
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Our Supreme Court has held that “each case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial judge for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.”
  • State v. Finn 528 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1974
    State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
    1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), and two Arizona cases, , and State v. Villalobos, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jefferson 503 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Greer 496 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    Defendant relied upon the rule derived from Griffin that the state may not comment upon extrajudicial admissions by silence which occur during the period of custody, , United States v. Arnold, 425 F.2d 204 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Nolan, 416 F.2d 588 (10th Cir. 1969), cert.
  • Maher v. Maher 495 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • Maher v. Maher 495 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    rehearing denied, 98 Ariz. *23 1 , , Wackerman v. Wackerman, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. O'DELL 492 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1972
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Johnson v. Johnson 479 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Peats 475 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
    In State v, Simoneau, , , we said: “Of course, where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, there is no issue of fact to be determined by the court in the absence of the jury and no need for a specific ruling.” The statements of the United Stat
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • Brown v. Brown 459 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    rehearing denied , ; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. McAlvain 454 P.2d 987 Ariz. 1969
    Although we agree with the result reached in the Villalobos case
  • State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Scanlon 450 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Fassler 446 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1968
    * * * ” , , we stated: “ * * * Of course, where no question is presented to the court either by counsel or by the evidence at the trial suggesting that a confession is involuntary, there is no issue of fact to be determined by the court in the absence of the jury and no need for a specific ruling.
  • Followed State v. Armstrong 440 P.2d 307 Ariz. 1968
    In deciding this case, , , we routinely remanded for determination by the trial judge-the voluntariness of an asserted confession: , .
  • State v. Hunter 433 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1967
    Section 44 Udall’s Arizona Law of Evidence.
  • State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    fth Amendment to the United States Constitution to these situations: “We agree and do not approve the introduction of evidence of an accused’s silence in reply to questions when he is in custody or under other circumstances where it is his constitutional right to refrain from incriminating himself under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
  • Dunbar v. Dunbar 429 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1967
  • Fenter v. Gruensfelder 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • In Re Anonymous 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Fenter v. Gruensfelder 422 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    Reardon v. Reardon, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Spencer 421 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1966
    For this reason, the instant case shall be remanded for a voluntariness hearing in accord with the procedures set out in State v. Dodd, supra; , ; , .
  • State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
    we have since held that each case must stand on its own facts as to whether it should be remanded to the trial court for a limited hearing to determine whether a confession is voluntary or whether a new trial should be granted.
  • Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Tannahill 411 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1966
    Appellant urges this cause should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial while the state would have us remand the case for a , .
  • State v. Goff 407 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1965
    There was, accordingly, no possible issue for the trial judge to determine, , and no factual question for the jury to decide except as to whether the statements attributed to the defendant were or were not made.
  • State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Shepard 405 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Tannahill 402 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    However, , , decided May 6, *283 1965, the Court, per Vice Chief Justice Struckmeyer, holds that the question of voluntariness could go back for a hearing following the dicta in Jackson v. Denno, supra, rather than for a new trial as in State v. Owen, supra, and the other cases cited above.