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. Murray, 906 P.2d 542.

324 citing documents.

  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    cert, denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct.
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
    We are, however, able to uphold the (F)(6) factor with respect to Susan’s killing on the basis of the cruelty finding alone, , cert.
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
    Nevertheless, “[although there is some possibility of confusion in a joint trial, in the interest of judicial economy, joint trials are the rule rather than the exception.” , cert.
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
  • Taliaferro v. Taliaferro 921 P.2d 21 Ariz. 1996
    P., one can challenge these proceedings only by motion for a new finding of probable cause and, if such a motion is denied, “a defendant must seek relief before trial by special action.”
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Superior Court 920 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (defendant may not challenge matters relevant only to grand jury proceedings by appeal from conviction); , (only exception to special action relief of denial of motion for probable cause redetermination occurs when grand jury procee
  • State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
    A three-part inquiry governs the admissibility of photographs: “(1) relevance; (2) tendency to incite or inflame the jury; and (3) probative value versus potential to cause unfair prejudice.” , Ariz.R.Evid.
  • State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995