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. Rich, 907 P.2d 1382.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mekeel 561 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    2 (“[If] a trial judge acts without notice, the litigants have no opportunity to object or voice their concerns regarding the judge’s procedure until it is too late.
  • State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    (noting hung jury in conclusion error not harmless); see also Cobb v. State, 283 Ga.
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 367 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2016
    Similarly, we have noted that “a communication between judge and jury outside the presence of defendant and counsel [may be] harmless error.” ( ).
  • State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Alaniz-Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶10 Our supreme court has instructed that “[w]hen a jury returns guilty verdicts for both a charged offense and a lesser included offense, the preferable course of action is to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruct on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’” ( ).
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (noting preference for reinstruction and further deliberations when jury returns guilty verdicts for charged and lesser included offense); ¶¶ 93-95 , (permitting court to allow jurors to make changes to verdict forms when fore
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 334 P.3d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    at 241 , 609 P.2d at 56 ; *237
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ("Whenever possible, trial courts should avoid ex parte communications with jurors, even at a juror's request and even if counsel consent."); , (collecting cases).
  • State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
    See Kennedy, 122 Ariz. at 26 , 592 P.2d at 1292
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    As appellant points out, our supreme court has concluded that “the preferable course of action” when a jury returns guilty verdicts for both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense is “to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruet on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’ ”
  • Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
  • Leavy v. Parsell 932 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1997
    3 (1997) (bailiff misconduct in misleading the jurors by giving incorrect answers to their questions without relaying the questions to the trial judge); , (trial judge failed to notify counsel that jury returned inconsistent guilty verdict on lesser included offense).
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
  • Perez v. Community Hospital of Chandler, Inc. 929 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
    See, -81 , -84 (1995); , -07 , -05 (1983).
  • State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
    For recent examples, see, , (CR-95-0204PR); , (CR-95-0060-PR) (both of which the dissenter joined); 3 see also, Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    (trial court disclosed jury foreperson’s letter alleging juror misconduct); , , 1384 (1995) (trial court improperly failed to disclose jury’s inconsistent verdicts).
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    In so concluding, we are cognizant of two cases involving inconsistent verdicts on greater and lesser offenses under the same count holding that, after consultation with counsel, “the preferable course of action is to ‘explain the situation to the jury, reinstruct on the law, and allow the jury to deliberate further.’ ”