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. Cassady, 190 P.2d 501.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    utorily triggered “on motion of the prosecution,” a trial court has considerable discretion to determine what procedures are appropriate in a particular case, , (holding the trial court acted within its discretion in varying the order of proof) (citing United States v. Halpin, 374 F.2d 493, 495 (7th Cir.1967), -57 , ), even absent a specific invocation of the statute.
  • State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 13-4253 are statutorily triggered “on motion of the prosecution,” a trial court has considerable discretion to determine what procedures are appropriate in a particular case, (holding the trial court acted within its discretion in varying the order of proof) (citing United States v. Halpin, 374 F.2d 493, 495 (7th Cir. 1967), -57 (1948)), even absent a specific invocation of the statute.
  • State v. Speerschneider 543 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Speerschneider 543 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    37 P. 368 (1894); P.2d 501 (1948); State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 139 N.W.2d 490 (1966) cert.
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
    United States v. Halpin, 7 Cir., 374 F.2d 493 , cert, denied, 386 U.S. 1032 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Riggins 528 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Webb 504 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    and State v. Cassady, 67 Ariz, 48, the general rule of law that proof of evidence of a conspiracy should precede any declarations of the co-conspirators is not absolute.
  • State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court 493 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1972
  • State ex rel. Berger v. Superior Court 493 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    the granting of a barren right.” When the name of a witness has been omitted from the information, it is within the legal discretion of the trial judge to grant or deny a motion for continuance but it should not be granted “unless such application was made at the earliest opportunity and then only if a continuance is necessary in the interest of justice.” State v. Lovell, supra
  • State v. Cota 432 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Cota 432 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Singh 419 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Rogers 419 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Rogers 419 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    at 60 , at 509 (1948), the Supreme Court of Arizona states: “* * * the privilege,against incrimination is personal to the witness, and the accused is not entitled to have such evidence excluded which is claimed to have incriminated the witness.
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. George 414 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1966
    discretion has been abused.’ ” *354 See also, , ; , .; Ariz.R.Crim.P., Rule 241, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cota 408 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1965
    Defendant contends Rule 270, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., , and that the Cassady decision controls the case before us. Rule 270 provides: "If at the close of the evidence for the state or at the close of all the evidence the court is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may, and on the motion *239 of the defendant shall, d
  • State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. George 390 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. George 390 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Favors 375 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Favors 375 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1962
    we said: “Our rules of criminal procedure should be construed so as to promote justice — not to thwart it.
  • State v. Moreno 374 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Moreno 374 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1962
    that a motion to reopen is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Sheldon 369 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1962
    -59 , , -320 (1936); , 232 P. 887, 891 , rev’d on other grounds, , 235 P. 140 (1925); , 205 P. 321, 322 (1922).
  • State v. Bagby 316 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957
  • State v. Bagby 316 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1957
    232 P. 887 ; , at page 59, ; , .
  • State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
  • State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
    we said: *138 “Our rules of criminal procedure should be construed so as to promote justice — not to thwart it.
  • State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
  • State v. McDaniel 298 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1956
    State v. Thomas, supra; , .
  • Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951
  • Horn v. Ruess 231 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1951
  • State v. Miller 224 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1950
  • State v. Miller 224 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1950
  • State v. Serna 211 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1949
  • State v. Serna 211 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1949
    The defendant not having asked for a continuance, it is difficult to discern wherein he was prejudiced by the order of the court permitting the witness to testify.” , .