Legal Opinion

State v. Hursey

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1993No. CR-93-0130-PRPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MOELLER, Vice Chief Justice.

FACTS

For more than a year and a half, the state and the defendant have agreed that the defendant is entitled to a new trial. Notwithstanding this agreement, both the trial court and the court of appeals have refused to order a new trial. We now grant the relief that both parties have requested throughout these proceedings.

Lawrence C. Hursey (defendant) was twice represented in earlier criminal cases by attorney Callahan, who later took a job as a Deputy Pinal County Attorney. When a new case against defendant arose, Callahan, as a prosecutor, accompanied the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. Tippecanoe County CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State v. LatigueArizona Supreme Court · 1972
  3. In Re OckrassaArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Corbin v. BroadmanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1967
  5. People v. StevensColorado Court of Appeals · 1981

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. BarnettNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. State Ex Rel. Keenan v. HatcherWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. WarehamCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2006
  4. State v. CurtisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  5. State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee EddingtonArizona Supreme Court · 2011

7 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