Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Anderson, 4 P.3d 369.

73 citing documents.

State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Ellison, relying on Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424-25 (1985), and State v. Anderson (Anderson I), -24 ¶¶ 5-24, -79 (2000), argues that this question is not the “searching inquiry” required by case law.
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
¶34 Glassel further asserts that Rule 18.5 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Anderson, 197 Ariz. 314, 320-21, ¶ 14, -76 (2000), required the trial court to allow Glassel to ask his questions.
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
Additionally, errors are considered structural rather than trial errors when they “affect the ‘entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end,’ ” and thus taint “ ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds.’ ” , 323 ¶ 22, (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-08, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
¶27 The Sixth Amendment prohibits the exclusion for cause of venire persons solely because they “have general objections to the death penalty.” ¶ 6, (citing Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
al views they could follow the instructions and law as given to them by the court.” ¶ 30 We agree with Carreon that, in general, the “clear language and intent of [Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.5.d] is that each party be given opportunity and reasonable time to question prospective jurors to discover information relevant to challenges and to possibly rehabilitate them.” , 321 ¶ 14
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
However, the trial judge is permitted to question jurors regarding their opinions on the death penalty, see, -19, ¶¶ 7-10 , -74 (2000), and, after attempting rehabilitation, may z*e-move a potential jzzror from the jzzry pool if the juror’s personal views may “prevent or substantially impair the performance of [the jzzror’s] duties.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 106, 65 P.3d at 946 (Feldman, J., dissenting) ( ¶¶ 21-22 , ).
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000