Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jorgenson, 10 P.3d 1177.

27 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 2 (2000) (barring retrial on a ).
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
is exactly what the double jeopardy provision intended to prevent.” ¶ 6 (2000) (cleaned up).
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Murphy-Logue v. Hon. steinlage/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–39, ¶¶ 29–35 (2002); –93, ¶¶ 4–11 (2000); Pool, 139 Ariz. at 108–09.
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
Cumulative error ¶122 Hulsey claims that the prosecutor’s “repeated and pervasive attacks on defense witnesses; improper questions and jury arguments were intentional and calculated to ‘win-by-any-means.’” –91 ¶ 2 (2000).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ight to be free from multiple trials” when he “seeks a new trial because of error in the original trial,” there is no such waiver “when the need for a second trial is brought 4 STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court about by the state’s egregiously intentional, improper conduct.” ¶ 6 (2000).
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶14 Indeed, our supreme court has held that retrial following a mistrial is barred only where it is based on “intentional prosecutorial misconduct aimed at preventing an acquittal.” ¶ 4 (2000) (citing Pool, 139 Ariz. at 109).
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
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-39, ¶¶ 29-35 , -82 (2002); -93, ¶¶ 4-11 , -80 (2000); Pool, 139 Ariz. at 108-09 , 677 P.2d at 271-72 .
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
-09 , -72 (1984) (holding that “jeopardy attaches under art. 2, § 10 of the Arizona Constitution when a mistrial is granted” and other specified conditions are met); ¶ 7 , (extending Pool to cases in which the mistrial motion was meritorious and should have been granted).
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
This court affirmed that holding after observing that double jeopardy bars retrial when there is “intentional prosecutorial misconduct aimed at preventing an acquittal.” State v. Jorgenson, 198 Ariz. 390, 391, ¶¶ 3-4, ( ).
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
P.3d 1177 (2000).1 The defendant’s 1 Jorgenson was a petition for special action that arose from our reversal of the convictions and sentences imposed on one Alex Hughes by reason of prosecutorial misconduct.
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 4 , ("The grant of a mistrial does not bar retrial except when the mistrial is granted because of intentional prose-cutorial misconduct aimed at preventing an acquittal.”).
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The supreme court upheld the dismissal, stating: “ ‘the burden of another trial cannot be attributed to defendant’s preference to start anew rather than “completing the trial infected by [an] error” and is, rather, attributable to the “state’s readiness, though perhaps not calculated intent, to force the defendant to such a choice.” ’ ” , quoting Pool, 139 Ariz. at 109 , 677 P.2d at 272 , (quoting State v. Kennedy, 295 Or.