Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 723 P.2d 92.

53 citing documents.

ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶14 “[A] motion for mistrial made by a defendant ordinarily will remove any bar to reprosecution except in circumstances ‘attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching.’” (quoting United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 607 (1976))
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
ing the same course of conduct constitute a single offense.” Consequently, he reasons that “[s]ending multiple text messages are, thus, a single offense and together constitute a single ‘unit of prosecution.’” The text messages are, he argues, inseparable as a legal matter and cannot for the same offense and is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶20 “Jeopardy attaches as soon as the jury is impaneled and sworn.” (citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978); Solomon, 125 Ariz. at 21; ).
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pistole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pistole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“Jeopardy attaches as soon as the jury is impaneled and sworn,” and “[g]enerally, once jeopardy attaches the defendant may not be subject to a second trial for the same offense.”
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
V; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 10
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 150 Ariz. 274, 277
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶6 “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant against multiple punishments or repeated prosecutions for the same offense and is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Higinio Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
the ends of public justice will otherwise be defeated.”
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
221, 224 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199, 205 (1957); , , affirmed in relevant part, vacated in part on other grounds, , (“[R]etrial following a hung jury is simply a continuation of a single prosecution....”).
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jones v. Kiger 984 P.2d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. at 509 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
State v. Killean 915 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1996
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State ex rel. Neely v. Sherrill 815 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State ex rel. Neely v. Sherrill 815 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1991
2056, 2062 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)
State v. Givens 778 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Givens 778 P.2d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In those cases where the trial court declares a mistrial sua sponte, whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits retrial without defendant’s consent “depends on whether there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or whether the ends of public justice will otherwise be defeated.” , see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 , 98 S.Ct.
Nalbandian v. Superior Court 786 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Nalbandian v. Superior Court 786 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Rule 22.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , (“Jeopardy may be removed for various legal reasons such as: the jury is unable to reach a verdict after lengthy deliberation ...
State v. Stevens 764 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1988
State v. Stevens 764 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988