Wilson test (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

Wilson test in Arizona

7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Michael Apeltgreen
ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022“Mere undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial are not enough.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶18 Wilson’s motion did not describe with any particularity the need for his requests and thus failed to meet the reasonable necessity threshold.

2022See id. at 365-66 .

11
United States v. Jacksongreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

11
Bordenkircher v. Hayesgreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

11
State v. Murdaughgreen
ariz · 2004 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018P. 17.3(a)(1)–(2), 17.4(c); State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19, 27, ¶ 33 (2004). ¶7 Here, the superior court explained each term of Wilson’s plea agreement, including the rights he waived by entering a guilty plea.

11
State v. Jonesgreen
ariz · 2000 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014See Jones, 197 Ariz. at 305 ¶ 37, 4 P.3d at 360 . ¶5 In the second instance, the court sustained Wilson’s objection on grounds of vouching to the prosecutor’s rhetorical question about whether the police officers who testified would have risked their jobs by lying on the stand.

2014See Jones, 197 Ariz. at 305 ¶ 37, 4 P.3d at 360 . ¶5 In the second instance, the court sustained Wilson’s objection on grounds of vouching to the prosecutor’s rhetorical question about whether the police officers who testified would have risked their jobs by lying on the stand.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Anders v. California green
scotus · 1967
1 sentence

2024In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

12024–2024
State v. Leon green
ariz · 1969
1 sentence

2024In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

12024–2024
United States v. James Lee Stockwell green
ca9 · 1973
2 sentences

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

2019See Jackson, 390 U.S. at 581 ; see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”); Stockwell, 472 F.2d at 1187 .

12019–2019
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County green
arizctapp · 1994
2 sentences

2001We do not-believe the legislature intended that result.”). ¶ 10 Citing Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466 , 897 P.2d 1352 (App.1994), the state contends “[t]he public’s interest in protecting victims outweighs the privacy interest protected by the privilege.” Although we do not necessarily disagree with that general proposition or its application in Benton , it does not justify elimination of Wilson’s privilege here.

2001We do not-believe the legislature intended that result.”). ¶ 10 Citing Benton v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 466 , 897 P.2d 1352 (App.1994), the state contends “[t]he public’s interest in protecting victims outweighs the privacy interest protected by the privilege.” Although we do not necessarily disagree with that general proposition or its application in Benton , it does not justify elimination of Wilson’s privilege here.

12001–2001
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance green
ariz · 1984
2 sentences

1989Co. v. Andersen, 158 Ariz. 426 , 763 P.2d 246 (1988); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 390 , 682 P.2d at 394 ; Restatement §§ 206 and 207.

1989Co. v. Andersen, 158 Ariz. 426 , 763 P.2d 246 (1988); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 390 , 682 P.2d at 394 ; Restatement §§ 206 and 207.

11989–1989
Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Andersen green
ariz · 1988
2 sentences

1989Co. v. Andersen, 158 Ariz. 426 , 763 P.2d 246 (1988); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 390 , 682 P.2d at 394 ; Restatement §§ 206 and 207.

1989Co. v. Andersen, 158 Ariz. 426 , 763 P.2d 246 (1988); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 390 , 682 P.2d at 394 ; Restatement §§ 206 and 207.

11989–1989

Where else courts name it

TX 48 (1924–2025) IL 44 (1982–2024) CA 43 (1946–2025) GA 34 (1973–2026) OH 31 (1996–2025) NJ 31 (1982–2022) IN 26 (1977–2023) FL 23 (1990–2026) WA 22 (1981–2024) AL 19 (1993–2025) MS 19 (1993–2026) NY 15 (1913–2019) PA 13 (2011–2025) MO 12 (1968–2021) VA 11 (1976–2025) IA 11 (1963–2021) KS 10 (1998–2026) NC 10 (1958–2022) AR 10 (1998–2025) MD 10 (1974–2025) MI 8 (1973–2024) MT 8 (1982–2024) AZ 7 (1989–2024) HI 7 (1999–2014) WI 6 (1988–2026) CT 5 (1994–2023) OK 4 (1993–2002) OR 4 (1912–2025) KY 4 (1999–2026) CO 4 (1983–2024) ME 3 (1994–2012) TN 3 (2003–2004) SC 3 (2002–2025) DE 3 (1999–2019) LA 3 (1995–2012) NE 2 (1990–2008) UT 2 (2009–2025) DC 2 (1998–2013) MN 2 (1996–2017) WY 2 (2002–2024) NM 2 (2008–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check