 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Lynn v. Reinstein, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0435-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 19, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Arizona held that Eighth Amendment prohibited victim from making sentencing recommendation to jury in capital case, but statements relevant to harm caused by defendant's criminal acts were allowed under Victims' Bill of Rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Hickman, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0424-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 19, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of Supreme Court decision and state court decisions that overruled automatic reversal rule when defendant's right to peremptory challenges was violated, reversal should only have occurred when defendant demonstrated prejudice.
|
|||||
| Andrews v. Blake, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0233-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 20, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The notice and option to purchase provision in the addendum neither precluded nor automatically rendered ineffective written exercise of the option to purchase sent by mail. The case was remanded to determine whether letter was proper notice.
|
|||||
| State v. Henry, 2 CA-CR 2001-0146,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 20, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sexual gratification qualified as benefit under fraudulent scheme and artifice statute where defendant obtained benefit through sexual gratification or posting photographs on his website for profit while paying victims less than consenting models.
|
|||||
| Galloway v. Vanderpool, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0269-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents of a worker were not permitted to bring a wrongful death action against employers because the right to select a common law or statutory remedy due to the employers' failure to post a written notice was personal to the worker.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, 2 CA-SA 2003-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 23, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence prescribed by statute for the crime of reckless manslaughter was a presumptive sentence; hence, the trial court judge could determine aggravating and mitigating factors and sentence to the maximum stated in a plea agreement.
|
|||||
| State v. Esser, 2 CA-CR 2001-0033, 2 CA-CR 2002-0046, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alcohol breath test results were properly admitted into evidence at defendants' trial on alcohol-related driving charges, as the test was found to analyze alveolar air, meaning air of alveolar composition, and the test was not novel science.
|
|||||
| State v. Gallagher, 1 CA-CR 02-0073,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, May 29, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was modified when his convictions of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia, occurring simultaneously, constituted just one "time" of conviction under Proposition 200.
|
|||||
| State v. Sullivan, 1 CA-CR 02-0115,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, May 29, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court erred by modifying a mandatory reasonable doubt instruction in a forgery case, the error itself was not structural; therefore, it was properly subjected to a harmless error analysis on review.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
