Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thompson, 206 P.2d 1037.

52 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
Proof of Acuna’s prior conviction was relevant to prove motive under Rule analysis principles that new procedural rules announced for criminal cases must generally be applied retroactively to cases not yet final); (recognizing that rules of criminal procedure can still grant a “substantial rather than a mere procedural or technical right”); Aranda v. Indus.
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Finally, the "absolute" , is quoted from the 1936 edition of American Jurisprudence.
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
“We regard the right as ‘a substantial rather than a mere procedural or technical right [that] should be fully enforced as an aid in securing an impartial jury.’” Id.
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Huerta 855 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1993
State v. Huerta 855 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1993
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
-40 (1949); , (civil case disavowing trial court procedures that forced party to use peremptory challenge to strike jurors that the court should have stricken for cause).
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
This right is substantial rather than merely procedural or technical, , and is extremely valuable.
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Rodriguez 641 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
Wasko v. Frankel 569 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1977
Wasko v. Frankel 569 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1977
Penaskovic v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 513 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Penaskovic v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 513 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and Board of Trustees v. McEwen, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Postell 510 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Postell 510 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Marin 490 P.2d 1170 Ariz. 1971
State v. Marin 490 P.2d 1170 Ariz. 1971
Although assault with a deadly weapon is a lesser included offense in the crime of assault with intent to commit murder, , , the defendant was, in the instant case, properly tried and convicted of both crimes.
State v. Felix 484 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1971
State v. Felix 484 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1971
State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
State v. Zimmer 472 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1970
“It is further submitted under oath, that counsel for the defendant did not know of the error by the Clerk until the fact was called to his attention at approximately 1:25 p. m. on the day of trial in the Court’s Chambers.” Counsel for the defendant bases his argument that the skipping of the juror’s , , in which the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder.
State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
we held that where peremptory challenges are permitted by the legislature, they cannot be arbitrarily denied.
State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. McGriff 441 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
is a voluntary relinquishment of such right.
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
cited by defendant Goodyear, wherein three jurors who had been peremptorily challenged by defendant were, through error and mistake, left on the panel, and this in effect only gave the defendant seven peremptory challenges when he was entitled to ten, which, as we held, violated the defendant’s subst
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State v. Lovell 399 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1965
State v. Holden 352 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1960
State v. Holden 352 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1960
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
Application of Williams 333 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1958
in finding that no legal jury had been sworn in the trial, the court stating: “ [ ], has stated that a jury which is formed in such a manner that defendant is deprived of a substantial statutory right is not a lawfu