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. Schaaf, 819 P.2d 909.

102 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
    (questioning jury to determine whether bias exists is permissible); , (juror questioning is permissible to determine whether their performance will be “substantially impair[ed]” by their views); Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 624 , 832 P.2d at 641 ( , ); Gulbrandson
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Because he failed to object to the admission of his confession, he has waived this argument on appeal absent fundamental error, State v. Schaaf , and we find none.
  • State v. Henry 955 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Henry 955 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (stating that illness of trial judge justified exclusion of reasonable time from speedy trial period where accused asserted no demonstrable prejudice).
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
    This court “will not consider an evidentiary theory when it is advanced for the first time on appeal.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Thompson 924 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Thompson 924 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    State v. Schaaft , gives Defendant’s argument some support.
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
    We have held that the constitutional right to counsel in a capital case is fulfilled “[w]hen a qualified member of the State Bar is assigned to represent defendant and acts diligently on his behalf ...” , .330, cert.
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that questioning prospective jurors about their position on the death sentence is permissible to determine whether jurors can perform their duties); -40 , -200 (1993), cert.
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
    3017 , 125 L.Ed.2d 707 (1993)
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
    (“We will not consider an evidentiary theory when it is advanced for the first time on appeal.”).
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that an objection to testimony as cumulative did not preserve a claim of error on the ground of probing work product); -07 , -15 (App.1991) (holding that a hearsay objection did not preserve a claim of error base
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    834 , 88 L.Ed.2d 805 (1986); the right to a speedy trial, e.g. State v. Schaaf , and the right to be present during voir dire, , but under Montgomery may not waive the right to appeal.
  • State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
    the state argues we have no jurisdiction to hear defendant’s arguments pertaining to his non-capital convictions because defendant’s notice of appeal on those counts did not specify that he was appealing his guilt as well as his sentences.
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    2182, 2192-93 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117 (1972)
  • State v. Burkett 876 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Burkett 876 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    3055 , 120 L.Ed.2d 921 (1992); Martinez, 837 F.2d at 867 ; Burkett I, 826 F.2d at 1219 ; Perez, 793 F.2d at 253-54 ; United States v. Williams, 782 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1985); , (Arizona Supreme Court applies the standard found in Barker v. Wingo to analyze a speedy trial claim).
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
    the state argues that the court does not have jurisdiction to consider this issue because Runningeagle’s automatic notice of appeal from the death sentence was not accompanied by a separate notice of appeal from the judgment on the other counts.
  • State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
    See State v. Schaaf , (one of two aggravating circumstances set aside; remanded for resentencing); , (same); see also, Note, Appellate Review of Death Sentences: An Analysis of the Impact of Clemons v. Mississippi in Arizona, 34 Ariz.L.Rev.
  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • Followed State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    We recently refused an identical request, , and do so again today.
  • State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (foreign statutory definition must involve violence or threat of violence if foreign conviction for felony involving violence or the use of -violence is used to enhance sentence under A.R.S.