Legal Opinion

State v. Armstrong

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 1968No. 1546PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STRUCKMEYER, Justice.

In deciding this case, State v. Armstrong, 103 Ariz. 174, 438 P.2d 411, we routinely remanded for determination by the trial judge-the voluntariness of an asserted confession: in accordance with our decision in State v. Simoneau, 98 Ariz. 2, 401 P.2d 404. Defendant now, in his motion for rehearing,, urges that, since we decided the trial judge-should have resolved the question of voluntarines's, it was fundamental error not to-have had the jury at the trial pass upon the same question. A re-examination of the-record has lead us to certain conclusions, which we think are…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aquino v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
  3. Lee v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. State v. OwenArizona Supreme Court · 1964
  5. State v. SimoneauArizona Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. State v. SmithArizona Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. FinnArizona Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State v. McGriffCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  5. State v. RhodesArizona Supreme Court · 1975

9 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