Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 4 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. Jonesgreen1 sentence2026See id. at 304-05 ¶¶ 33-34; Woods, 237 Ariz. at 219 ¶¶ 18-19. ¶19 Tapia Munoz also argues that excusing the jury immediately after the witness testified to the objectionable facts, “ordering the testimony be stricken from the record,” and issuing a “lengthy curative instruction” all drew additional attention to the improper testimony. ¶20 Although Tapia Munoz points out an inherent risk in curative instructions, such instructions can mitigate prejudice and juries are presumed to follow them. | 1 | 1 |
McLaughlin v. Fahringergreen1 sentence2026A court must make a “real effort to determine whether there were any feasible alternatives to declaring a mistrial.” McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 150 Ariz. 274, 277 (1986). 5 STATE v. TAPIA MUNOZ Decision of the Court Feasible alternatives include admonishment, curative instructions, and asking the jurors whether the error affected their ability to remain impartial. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woodsgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Woods, 237 Ariz. 214 , 219 ¶¶ 18-19 (App. 2015). 2026See id. at 304-05 ¶¶ 33-34; Woods, 237 Ariz. at 219 ¶¶ 18-19. ¶19 Tapia Munoz also argues that excusing the jury immediately after the witness testified to the objectionable facts, “ordering the testimony be stricken from the record,” and issuing a “lengthy curative instruction” all drew additional attention to the improper testimony. ¶20 Although Tapia Munoz points out an inherent risk in curative instructions, such instructions can mitigate prejudice and juries are presumed to follow them. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnsongreen1 sentence2024See Johnson, 247 Ariz. at 199 ¶ 126 (observing that a juror’s experience as a victim “alone is not disqualifying”). ¶34 Finally, Rodriguez contends Juror L. should have been struck because he was, at first, not certain he could be fair and impartial. “[A] juror’s assurances of impartiality need not be couched in absolute terms.” Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 139 ¶ 37. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoskinsgreen1 sentence2024See Johnson, 247 Ariz. at 199 ¶ 126 (observing that a juror’s experience as a victim “alone is not disqualifying”). ¶34 Finally, Rodriguez contends Juror L. should have been struck because he was, at first, not certain he could be fair and impartial. “[A] juror’s assurances of impartiality need not be couched in absolute terms.” Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 139 ¶ 37. | 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. Sabala
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 417–18. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Maretick v. Jarrett
green
1 sentence2022BERNINI/STATE Opinion of the Court together . . . that there is probable cause to believe the person under investigation is guilty of [a] public offense.” A.R.S. § 21-413. ¶25 “The prosecutor’s role before the grand jury is unique in our system,” because the prosecutor acts “not simply as an advocate, but as a ‘minister of justice,’ who assists the jurors in their inquiry.” Maretick, 204 Ariz. at 197 ¶ 10 (quoting Ariz. R. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 434 ¶ 18, 207 P.3d at 687 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Allen
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 434 ¶ 18, 207 P.3d at 687 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Kayer
green
2 sentences2002Phillips alleges the trial court excluded the jurors in violation of his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury- ¶ 24 A trial judge “must excuse any potential jurors who cannot provide assurance that their death penalty views will not affect their ability to decide issues of guilt.” State v. Kayer, 194 Ariz. 423 , 432 ¶ 27, 984 P.2d 31 , 40 ¶ 27 (1999). 2002Phillips alleges the trial court excluded the jurors in violation of his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury- ¶ 24 A trial judge “must excuse any potential jurors who cannot provide assurance that their death penalty views will not affect their ability to decide issues of guilt.” State v. Kayer, 194 Ariz. 423 , 432 ¶ 27, 984 P.2d 31 , 40 ¶ 27 (1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.