Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. SUPERIOR CT IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY., 760 P.2d 541.

53 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
See State v. Superior Court (Gardner), n.4 (1988) (declining to decide whether article 2, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution forbids race-based peremptory strikes).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Criminal Div. of Attorney Gen.’s
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
will interpret defendant’s right to a trial by an impartial jury, Ariz. Const. Art. § 24, as co-extensive with the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Superior Court (Gardner)
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
In Arizona, “[disqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative.” , ( , ); , (excusing venire person who could not convict due to religious opposition to the death penalty does not violate state constitutional provision against disqualification based on religious beliefs).
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
a hunch to continue to question [him].” A police officer may not detain a person for, investigative purposes unless the officer has a “reasonable, articula-ble suspicion that a particular person ha[s] committed, [i]s committing, or [i]s about to commit a crime.” , (emphasis omitted), overruled on other grounds, , see also State v. Dickey, 152 N.J.
State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
overruled on other grounds, State v. Superior Court (Gardner), , cert.
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
In State v. Wiley, this court instructed that a police officer may detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that a particular person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.” , overruled on other grounds
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
We have construed the Wainwright standard such that “[disqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative.” Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 277 , 921 P.2d at 680 ( , , ).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
overruled on other grounds
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
(“In order to prevent juror confusion, the trial court must instruct the jury to consider the evidence against each defendant separately.”), overruled on other grounds, , cert.
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), -35 , -54 (1985), overruled on other grounds
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
overruled on other grounds
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 1329 ; Winegar, 147 Ariz. at 447 n. 5, 711 P.2d at 586 n. 5; , overruled on other grounds
State v. Cruz 857 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1993
State v. Cruz 857 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1993
Although many state and federal cases since Batson have extended its application, see, , (white defendant can raise Batson challenge), cert.
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
“[A] trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when it is adequately covered by other instructions.”
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rodarte 842 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Appellant relies on article II, § 24 of the Arizona Constitution for the proposition that “the state may not make discriminatory use of the peremptory challenge to exclude any substantial and identifiable class of citizens from the privilege and obligations of jury service.” State v. Superior Court (Gardner), , cert.
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
(citations omitted); -10 , -79 (1991); -35 , -54 (1985), overruled on other grounds
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Prior to the Powers decision, , that the trial by jury clause of the Sixth Amendment bars the state from using a peremptory challenge to “discriminatorily” exclude any substantial and identifiable class of citizens from jury service, even if the defendant and the excluded jurors are of different races.
State v. Katzorke 810 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Katzorke 810 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
our supreme court avoided that requirement and granted standing to challenge racially motivated exclusions of jurors to a defendant of a different race, by premising that result on the sixth amendment right to an impartial jury.
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
overruled on other grounds, , cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Reyes 788 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Reyes 788 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); State v. Superior Court (Gardner), , petition for cert.
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
State v. Blackhoop 781 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1989
1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); and State v. Superior Ct. (Gardner)
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989