Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY.
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
FELDMAN, Justice.
Defendant brings this special action proceeding 1 to prohibit the trial court from permitting the state to call his former counsel as a witness at a retrospective competency determination. The issue presented is whether the state can require a criminal defendant’s former counsel to testify on the issue of defendant’s past competency to stand trial or to plead. We have accepted jurisdiction because this is an important issue of first impression in the state of Arizona. King v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 673 P.2d 787 (1983). We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const, art. 6, §…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. Amaya-RuizArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. KleypasSupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
- State v. MeeksWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Washington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2012
- Manning v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.