Court of Appeals of Arizona· 11/10/1981

State v. Bravo

Citations

639 P.2d 358
131 Ariz. 168
1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 616

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding no error when defendant failed to object to two veniremembers whose responses during voir dire indicated they could not be fair and impartial’, then used two peremptory challenges to remove them
trial court not required to act sua sponte, even though it may do so, to strike prospective jurors where defendant failed to challenge jurors for cause
“[E]ven though the answers of a venireman demonstrate that he cannot be fair and impartial, the challenge may be waived.”
trial court not required to act sua sponte , even though it may do so, to strike prospective jurors where defendant failed to challenge jurors for cause
where culpable mental state is \recklessly\, voluntary intoxication not considered defense
voluntary intoxication is not a defense to manslaughter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Birdsall, Hathaway, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.