Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Huerta

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1993No. CR-91-0401-PRPublished

1DissentMartone, Justice

The result achieved by the majority is not supported by our own cases, federal common law, or the rule adopted by most states. The majority’s reliance upon the doctrine of stare decisis is misplaced. An analysis of our cases, federal law, and the cases in other states indicates that the Arizona rule is contrary to that stated by the majority, and it ought to be.

We begin with the Arizona rule. As the court notes, ante, at 263, 855 P.2d at 777, the Arizona rule is stated in Encinas v. State, 26 Ariz. 24, 28-29, 221 P. 232, 233 (1923). We there held that an “order overruling [a] challenge for…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Dawson v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API