11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2023 2 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. Natividadgreen1 sentence2023See Natividad, 111 Ariz. at 194 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henrygreen2 sentences2013Although the trial court’s colloquy could have been clearer, *508 the record, when viewed reasonably and in context, does not support Rose’s argument. ¶ 31 “The requirements of Boykin are met when it appears from a consideration of the entire record that the accused was aware that he was waiving [his constitutional] rights and it appears that it was a knowing and voluntary waiver.” State v. Henry, 114 Ariz. 494, 496 , 562 P.2d 374, 376 (1977). 2013Although the trial court’s colloquy could have been clearer, *508 the record, when viewed reasonably and in context, does not support Rose’s argument. ¶ 31 “The requirements of Boykin are met when it appears from a consideration of the entire record that the accused was aware that he was waiving [his constitutional] rights and it appears that it was a knowing and voluntary waiver.” State v. Henry, 114 Ariz. 494, 496 , 562 P.2d 374, 376 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danngreen2 sentences2009After Speer conferred with counsel,, the court went through a colloquy with him and found that he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the court’s offer to dismiss Juror 7. 2. ¶ 72 Mistrial is the “most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 , 570 ¶ 43, 74 P.3d 231, 244 (2003). 2009After Speer conferred with counsel,, the court went through a colloquy with him and found that he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the court’s offer to dismiss Juror 7. 2. ¶ 72 Mistrial is the “most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 , 570 ¶ 43, 74 P.3d 231, 244 (2003). | 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. Thornton
green
2 sentences1983Such waiver is effective, State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142 , 426 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz. App. 472 , 549 P.2d 252 (1976), and does not establish the prejudice necessary to mandate severance. 1983Such waiver is effective, State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142 , 426 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz. App. 472 , 549 P.2d 252 (1976), and does not establish the prejudice necessary to mandate severance. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences1983Such waiver is effective, State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142 , 426 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz. App. 472 , 549 P.2d 252 (1976), and does not establish the prejudice necessary to mandate severance. 1983Such waiver is effective, State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142 , 426 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz. App. 472 , 549 P.2d 252 (1976), and does not establish the prejudice necessary to mandate severance. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Tiznado
green
2 sentences1977From the entire record before us, it is clear that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights.” 112 Ariz. at 157 , 540 P.2d at 123 . 1977From the entire record before us, it is clear that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights.” 112 Ariz. at 157 , 540 P.2d at 123 . | 2 | 1975–1977 |
State v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2021DISCUSSION A. Emedi is Bound by His Counsel’s Waiver of the Right to a Settlement Conference Before a Judicial Officer Other than the Assigned Trial Judge. ¶8 Emedi argues that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.4(a)(2), which provides that an assigned trial judge may participate in settlement discussions only “if the parties consent,” required the court to make a record of his “knowing and voluntary” waiver of “his right to not 3 STATE v. EMEDI Opinion of the Court have a trial judge be the same jurist who conducted the settlement conference.” In support of this argument, Emedi contends: ( | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose
green
2 sentences2014His counsel likewise confirmed that nothing in the circumstances of the case would render involuntary the exchange of the right to a jury trial for the withdrawal of the State’s intent to seek the death penalty. ¶24 The requirements for a valid waiver of constitutional rights, including the right to a trial by jury, “are met when it appears from a consideration of the entire record that the accused was aware that he was waiving [his constitutional] rights and it appears that it was a knowing and voluntary waiver.” Rose, 231 Ariz. at 508 ¶ 31, 297 P.3d at 914 . 2014His counsel likewise confirmed that nothing in the circumstances of the case would render involuntary the exchange of the right to a jury trial for the withdrawal of the State’s intent to seek the death penalty. ¶24 The requirements for a valid waiver of constitutional rights, including the right to a trial by jury, “are met when it appears from a consideration of the entire record that the accused was aware that he was waiving [his constitutional] rights and it appears that it was a knowing and voluntary waiver.” Rose, 231 Ariz. at 508 ¶ 31, 297 P.3d at 914 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Godinez v. Moran
green
2 sentences2011Cf. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (noting that competency involves the defendant’s general ability to understand proceedings, but “the purpose of the knowing and voluntary inquiry ... is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011Cf. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (noting that competency involves the defendant’s general ability to understand proceedings, but “the purpose of the knowing and voluntary inquiry ... is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision”) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Henderson v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1977It is also argued on appeal that the appellant’s plea of guilty was entered in violation of Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 , 96 S.Ct. 2253 , 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), on the *497 basis that the record does not demonstrate that the appellant knew that intent was a requisite element of the charges against him or that he acted with such intent. 1977It is also argued on appeal that the appellant’s plea of guilty was entered in violation of Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 , 96 S.Ct. 2253 , 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), on the *497 basis that the record does not demonstrate that the appellant knew that intent was a requisite element of the charges against him or that he acted with such intent. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Ritchey
green
2 sentences1973Although the minute entry of August 31, 1971, is not sufficient to constitute a valid waiver of a jury trial, since there is no showing that the defendant was present at that proceeding, State v. Ritchey, 107 Ariz. 552 , 490 P.2d 558 (1971), the September 8, 1971, bench trial was conducted in the presence of the defendant who was assisted by counsel. 1973Although the minute entry of August 31, 1971, is not sufficient to constitute a valid waiver of a jury trial, since there is no showing that the defendant was present at that proceeding, State v. Ritchey, 107 Ariz. 552 , 490 P.2d 558 (1971), the September 8, 1971, bench trial was conducted in the presence of the defendant who was assisted by counsel. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.