Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Whitson v. State, 181 P.2d 822.

32 citing documents.

State v. Miller 875 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1994
State v. Miller 875 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1994
-400 , -25 (1947); Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 475 (Del.1986), cert.
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Assuming, arguendo, that our juror did “receive evidence,” under Whitson only if “such communications refer to the case and have a tendency to color the mind of the juror in such a way as to make impossible a fair and impartial trial — a new trial should be granted.” (emphasis supplied) 65 Ariz. at 399, .
State v. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
And *107 if such communications refer to the case and have a tendency to color the minds of the juror in such a way as to make impossible a fair and impartial trial and are thus prejudicial to the complaining party, a new trial should be granted.”
Vana v. Elkins 514 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Vana v. Elkins 514 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
Defendant claims that it was error not to instruct the jury that the crime of theft “requires a specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” It is true that “intent to permanently deprive the owner of his possession is an essential ingredient of grand theft”, , , and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if reasonably supported by the evidence.
Windauer v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Windauer v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Wood 435 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Zaragosa 430 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Zaragosa 430 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the- trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * *.’ , ; , 320 P.2d *322 446, 450.” 89 Ariz. at 164, 359 P.2d at 755 .
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
State v. Mills 396 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1964
.” State v. Marsin, supra, at 3 , 307 P.2d at 608 .
State v. Garaygordobil 359 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1961
State v. Garaygordobil 359 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1961
And the appellate court will not interfere with a matter so peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial judge unless an abuse of discretion exists * * , ; , .
State v. Jordan 320 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1958
State v. Jordan 320 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1958
at page 399, , wherein the court said: “ * * * Great weight must be given to the ruling of the trial court cn the question of granting or denying a motion for a new trial because of alleged misconduct of a juror.
State v. Marsin 307 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1957
State v. Marsin 307 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1957
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
Northern Arizona Supply Co. v. Stinson 238 P.2d 937 Ariz. 1951
Mr. D. A. Foil, owner and president of the defendant corporation, made the statement to the juror that “All companies cover their traveling cars with insurance.” He shouldn’t have been talking with a juror during the course of the trial and especially should he not talk about the case in any respects, least of - all say that “All companies carry insurance.” • , , this court set aside a verdict of guilty on the grounds that one of the jurors was told of the defendant’s bad reputation in the state
State v. Eisenstein 235 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951
Distinguished State v. Eisenstein 235 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951