15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sucharewgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Sucharew, 205 Ariz. 16, 21, ¶ 10 (App. 2003). 2020See State v. Sucharew, 205 Ariz. 16, 21, ¶ 10 (App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2006We agree with the state on all points. ¶ 10 In Crawford, the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. at 1355 ; see also Davis, — U.S. at -, 126 S.Ct. at 2273 . 2006We agree with the state on all points. ¶10 In Crawford, the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross- examination.” 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S. Ct. at 1355 ; see also Davis, ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S. Ct. at 2273 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Valverdegreen1 sentence2024Moreover, even had Esaw engaged in disruptive behavior during trial while representing himself, the court would have had discretion, and was not obligated, to appoint counsel for him. ¶9 “If an appellate court finds structural error, reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below or prejudice is found.” State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, ¶ 10 (2009), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , ¶¶ 15-16 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchamgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 193-94 ; see also State v. Mitcham, 256 Ariz. 104, 110, ¶ 22, n. 2 (App. 2023) (The Court of Appeals must follow Arizona Supreme Court decisions.). ¶17 The State argues that a hearing requirement conflicts with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.3(b)(5), which states a court may hold a hearing on a probation modification request. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Korzuchgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 193-94 ; see also State v. Mitcham, 256 Ariz. 104, 110, ¶ 22, n. 2 (App. 2023) (The Court of Appeals must follow Arizona Supreme Court decisions.). ¶17 The State argues that a hearing requirement conflicts with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.3(b)(5), which states a court may hold a hearing on a probation modification request. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2022First, in State v. (Therron A.) Johnson, 131 Ariz. 299, 303 (1982), we noted that the inquiry for this aggravator involves “not whether the coparticipant could be held liable as an accomplice,” but instead requires a finding that either “the dangerous nature of the offense was increased because of the actual presence or participation of multiple perpetrators” or the “defendant believed he was acting in concert with another.” Second, the State correctly notes that we have recognized that juries understand “accomplice” based on the plain meaning of the word. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalantegreen1 sentence2019See Escalante , 245 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 30, 425 P.3d at 1087 (stating that under this standard the state must show "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence" (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michael Apeltgreen2 sentences1995The state cites as authority State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349, 365-67 , 861 P.2d 634, 650-52 (1993), which upheld the denial of a defendant’s request for funds for counsel or an investigator to travel to Germany to look for mitigating evidence in a death case with no adequate showing of necessity. 1995The state cites as authority State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349, 365-67 , 861 P.2d 634, 650-52 (1993), which upheld the denial of a defendant’s request for funds for counsel or an investigator to travel to Germany to look for mitigating evidence in a death case with no adequate showing of necessity. | 1 | 1 |
Huddleston v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690-91 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501-02 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). 1993See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690-91 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501-02 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Boardgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Bd., 152 Ariz. 331 , 732 P.2d 222 (App.1986); Racine v. State Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. 1990See, e.g., Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Bd., 152 Ariz. 331 , 732 P.2d 222 (App.1986); Racine v. State Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006We agree with the state on all points. ¶ 10 In Crawford, the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. at 1355 ; see also Davis, — U.S. at -, 126 S.Ct. at 2273 . 2006We agree with the state on all points. ¶ 10 In Crawford, the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. at 1355 ; see also Davis, — U.S. at -, 126 S.Ct. at 2273 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
2 sentences2002Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). ¶23 The state argues that our analysis should end with step one because the trial court erroneously found a prima facie showing of discrimination. 2002Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). ¶23 The state argues that our analysis should end with step one because the trial court erroneously found a prima facie showing of discrimination. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Lewis v. Warner
green
2 sentences1992We also accepted jurisdiction because the juvenile court's authority to order such a continuance is a matter of statewide importance that turns upon a question of law rather than upon disputed issues of fact. [3] Lewis v. Warner, 166 Ariz. 354 , 802 P.2d 1053 (App. 1991). *112 DISCUSSION Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court governs transfer hearings. [4] The state argues that the rule requires the juvenile court to decide the transfer issue on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing and that it does not authorize the court to order a lengthy continuance to obtain 1992We also accepted jurisdiction because the juvenile court's authority to order such a continuance is a matter of statewide importance that turns upon a question of law rather than upon disputed issues of fact. [3] Lewis v. Warner, 166 Ariz. 354 , 802 P.2d 1053 (App. 1991). *112 DISCUSSION Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court governs transfer hearings. [4] The state argues that the rule requires the juvenile court to decide the transfer issue on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing and that it does not authorize the court to order a lengthy continuance to obtain | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1980The state argues that the error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) because there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt. 1980The state argues that the error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) because there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.