12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2017 0 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. Millsgreen2 sentences2016State v. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 276, ¶ 31 (App. 1999). 2008For a witness to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, he must show a “reasonable ground to apprehend danger to [himself] from his being compelled to answer.” State v. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 276, ¶31 , 995 P.2d 705, 712 (App.1999) (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1046 (5th Cir.1976)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Gagnongreen2 sentences2011In these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant’s right to be present had not been violated because his involvement in the competency hearing would not have had a “‘relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” Id. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). ¶ 16 In Gagnon, the trial court excluded defendants from an in camera inquiry concerning juror prejudice. 470 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. 1482 . 2003See State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 262 , 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (1996); Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528-29 , 105 S.Ct. at 1485-86 (concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to be present is waived by failing to object or to request to attend an in camera hearing). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Ivan Melchor Moreno and Rigoberto Melchor Morenogreen1 sentence2008For a witness to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, he must show a “reasonable ground to apprehend danger to [himself] from his being compelled to answer.” State v. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 276, ¶31 , 995 P.2d 705, 712 (App.1999) (quoting United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1046 (5th Cir.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Muniz-Caudillogreen2 sentences2003See State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 262 , 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (1996); Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528-29 , 105 S.Ct. at 1485-86 (concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to be present is waived by failing to object or to request to attend an in camera hearing). 2003See State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 262 , 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (1996); Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528-29 , 105 S.Ct. at 1485-86 (concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to be present is waived by failing to object or to request to attend an in camera hearing). | 1 | 1 |
City of Tucson v. SUP. CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMAgreen2 sentences2003See City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 25 Ariz.App. 512, 515 , 544 P.2d 1113, 1116 (1976) (explaining that an in camera inquiry “protects information from improper disclosure and at the same time gives a litigant access to essential information”). 2003See City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 25 Ariz.App. 512, 515 , 544 P.2d 1113, 1116 (1976) (explaining that an in camera inquiry “protects information from improper disclosure and at the same time gives a litigant access to essential information”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gendrongreen2 sentences2003Error is fundamental if it is “clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial” and, viewed in the context of the entire trial, is “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 , 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). ¶ 56 In summary, before we will require a new trial because of Dann’s absence from any proceedings, we must determine that Dann adequately asserted the right below or, if he did not, that any resultant error was fundamental. 2003Error is fundamental if it is “clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial” and, viewed in the context of the entire trial, is “of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.” State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 , 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). ¶ 56 In summary, before we will require a new trial because of Dann’s absence from any proceedings, we must determine that Dann adequately asserted the right below or, if he did not, that any resultant error was fundamental. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1987Either of the following is true: (a) The minor testifies at the proceedings. (b) The minor is unavailable as a witness, provided that if the minor is unavailable as a witness, the statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the statement.” (Emphasis added.) We first note that the unavailability of the child was never contested and this argument has been waived. 1 See State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506 , 633 P.2d 315 (1981); see also State v. Thompson, 146 Ariz. 552 , 707 P.2d 956 (App.1985) (the right to object to testimony which violates the right of confrontation guaran 1987Either of the following is true: (a) The minor testifies at the proceedings. (b) The minor is unavailable as a witness, provided that if the minor is unavailable as a witness, the statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the statement.” (Emphasis added.) We first note that the unavailability of the child was never contested and this argument has been waived. 1 See State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506 , 633 P.2d 315 (1981); see also State v. Thompson, 146 Ariz. 552 , 707 P.2d 956 (App.1985) (the right to object to testimony which violates the right of confrontation guaran | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nathaniel Moore, Jr.green1 sentence1983See United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 41 , 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McDaniel
green
2 sentences2008“If upon conducting an in camera hearing the trial judge determines that a witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions, then that witness may be totally excused without violating an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.” Id. ¶ 21 This exception to a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to call a witness is narrow, however, and applies only “when the trial judge has extensive knowledge of the case and rules that the Fifth Amendment would be properly invoked in response to all relevant questions that the party calling the witness plans on askin 2008“If upon conducting an in camera hearing the trial judge determines that a witness could legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions, then that witness may be totally excused without violating an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.” Id. ¶ 21 This exception to a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to call a witness is narrow, however, and applies only “when the trial judge has extensive knowledge of the case and rules that the Fifth Amendment would be properly invoked in response to all relevant questions that the party calling the witness plans on askin | 3 | 1994–2017 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 194 , 665 P.2d at 76 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2011In these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant’s right to be present had not been violated because his involvement in the competency hearing would not have had a “‘relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” Id. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). ¶ 16 In Gagnon, the trial court excluded defendants from an in camera inquiry concerning juror prejudice. 470 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. 1482 . 2011In these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant’s right to be present had not been violated because his involvement in the competency hearing would not have had a “‘relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” Id. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). ¶ 16 In Gagnon, the trial court excluded defendants from an in camera inquiry concerning juror prejudice. 470 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. 1482 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kentucky v. Stincer
green
2 sentences2011In these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant’s right to be present had not been violated because his involvement in the competency hearing would not have had a “‘relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” Id. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). ¶ 16 In Gagnon, the trial court excluded defendants from an in camera inquiry concerning juror prejudice. 470 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. 1482 . 2011In these circumstances, the Court held that the defendant’s right to be present had not been violated because his involvement in the competency hearing would not have had a “‘relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” Id. at 745 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder, 291 U.S. at 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330 ). ¶ 16 In Gagnon, the trial court excluded defendants from an in camera inquiry concerning juror prejudice. 470 U.S. at 523, 105 S.Ct. 1482 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Vickers
green
2 sentences1987Either of the following is true: (a) The minor testifies at the proceedings. (b) The minor is unavailable as a witness, provided that if the minor is unavailable as a witness, the statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the statement.” (Emphasis added.) We first note that the unavailability of the child was never contested and this argument has been waived. 1 See State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506 , 633 P.2d 315 (1981); see also State v. Thompson, 146 Ariz. 552 , 707 P.2d 956 (App.1985) (the right to object to testimony which violates the right of confrontation guaran 1987Either of the following is true: (a) The minor testifies at the proceedings. (b) The minor is unavailable as a witness, provided that if the minor is unavailable as a witness, the statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the statement.” (Emphasis added.) We first note that the unavailability of the child was never contested and this argument has been waived. 1 See State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506 , 633 P.2d 315 (1981); see also State v. Thompson, 146 Ariz. 552 , 707 P.2d 956 (App.1985) (the right to object to testimony which violates the right of confrontation guaran | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Rodriquez
green
1 sentence1986App.2d 353 , 657 P.2d 79 (1983); State v. Ryan, supra. Each offered statement must be evaluated in the factual context of the particular case, with the overall goal of determining whether reliability is sufficiently indicated by the evidence adduced at the in camera hearing. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. McDaniel
green
2 sentences1983At the beginning of the in camera hearing on October 19, Leslie’s counsel advised the court and the prosecutor that his client’s position was that if the trial judge were disqualified under State v. Valencia, supra, then a new trial would be mandated by this court’s decision in State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13 , 617 P.2d 1129 (1980), and the plain wording of A.R.S. § 13-703(B). 1983At the beginning of the in camera hearing on October 19, Leslie’s counsel advised the court and the prosecutor that his client’s position was that if the trial judge were disqualified under State v. Valencia, supra, then a new trial would be mandated by this court’s decision in State v. McDaniel, 127 Ariz. 13 , 617 P.2d 1129 (1980), and the plain wording of A.R.S. § 13-703(B). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Kenneth Wayne Goodwin, Charles William Bullard and Grover Eugene Beaver
green
1 sentence1983See United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 41 , 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Roberto Gomez-Rojas, and Michael Rece Sutherlin
green
1 sentence1983See United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 41 , 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Phoenix Newspapers Incorporated v. Jennings
green
2 sentences1983While recognizing the constitutional rights involved here, including those of the news media, see, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557 , 490 P.2d 563 (1971), we are of the opinion that PNI’s argument is overly simplistic for it ignores the inherent power of the court to conduct in camera proceedings. 1983While recognizing the constitutional rights involved here, including those of the news media, see, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557 , 490 P.2d 563 (1971), we are of the opinion that PNI’s argument is overly simplistic for it ignores the inherent power of the court to conduct in camera proceedings. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Merritt v. United States
green
2 sentences1983See United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 41 , 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). 1983See United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Gomez-Rojas, 507 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 , 96 S.Ct. 41 , 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.