State v. Hickman
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RYAN, Justice.
¶ 1 State v. Huerta requires automatic reversal of a criminal trial when a defendant uses a peremptory strike to remove a prospective juror whom the trial court should have excused for cause. 175 Ariz. 262, 266, 855 P.2d 776, 780 (1993). We granted review to reexamine Huerta’s automatic reversal rule in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000),1 and other recent developments with respect to this issue. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3), of the Arizona…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. Martinez-SalazarSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew PayneArizona Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. AndersonArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. GlasselArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- Busby v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2005
- State v. McGillArizona Supreme Court · 2006
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.