Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Voeckell, 210 P.2d 972.

38 citing documents.

State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Lautzenheiser 881 P.2d 339 Ariz. 1994
State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Voeckell instructions, , are instructions that encourage a jury to reach a verdict, that encourage dissenting jurors to consider the fact that a majority of a jury is disagreeing with them, or that point out the importance of agreement or the cost of disagreement.
State v. Roberts 642 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1982
State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
State v. Smith 493 P.2d 904 Ariz. 1972
State v. Bennin 480 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1971
State v. Bennin 480 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1971
State v. Datsi 462 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Datsi 462 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
State v. Pima County Superior Court 442 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1968
“Furthermore, , : “' * * * The usual insanity proceedings were left unchanged by our adoption of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Eyman v. McPherson 405 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Eyman v. McPherson 405 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Balderrama 397 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1964
State v. Balderrama 397 P.2d 632 Ariz. 1964
Ariz. 346 , 170 P. 869 , L.R.A.1918D, 373 ; , 247 P. 129 ; , 62 P. 693 , 64 P. 492 ; , ; , 294 P. 622 ; , 36 P. 207 ; , 268 P. 615 ; , 229 P. 939 ; , .
State ex rel. Ronan v. Stevens 375 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1962
State ex rel. Ronan v. Stevens 375 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1962
Furthermore, , : “ * * * The usual insanity proceedings were left unchanged by our adoption of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
State v. Evans 356 P.2d 1106 Ariz. 1960
Although the Voeckell instruction had been approved as technically correct in several opinions of this court, , , , , , , we reversed State v. Thomas with directions to grant a new trial for the reason that: “ * * * under the salient facts recited (it) could and did infer to the jury the court’s anxiety for it to arrive at some
State v. Reid 348 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1960
State v. Reid 348 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1960
State v. Thomas 342 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1959
State v. Thomas 342 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1959
State v. Craft 333 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1958
State v. Craft 333 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1958
State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
State v. Coey 309 P.2d 260 Ariz. 1957
State v. Macias, supra; , .
State v. Polan 293 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1956
State v. Polan 293 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1956
State v. Stracuzzi 289 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1955
State v. Stracuzzi 289 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1955
cited by the State as holding that it is not error to proceed with the trial of a criminal case without first disposing of insanity proceedings theretofore initiated* *317 does not contain such a general holding and is not applicable in this case.
State v. Lubetkin 276 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1954
State v. Lubetkin 276 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1954