Arizona Supreme Court· 3/1/1988
State v. Broughton
Citations
- 752 P.2d 483
- 156 Ariz. 394
- 3 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 7
- 1988 Ariz. LEXIS 37
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that prejudice requires a showing of more than mere speculation
- holding that defendant could not show prejudice through speculation
- holding that defendant could not show prejudice through speculation
- finding the due process clause has a “limited” role in the case of pre- indictment delays as such matters are protected primarily by statutes of limitations
- prejudice not demonstrated by speculation that witnesses' memories may have diminished or earlier testing of evidence could have been exculpatory
- delayed testing of a blade for blood and fingerprints did not constitute destruction of evidence supporting a Willits instruction
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moeller, Gordon, Feldman, Cameron, Holohan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. AtwoodArizona Supreme Court· 1992-07-10· cited 361×
- State v. MurrayArizona Supreme Court· 1995-10-26· cited 217×
- State v. DunlapCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1996-09-05· cited 108×
- State v. LacyArizona Supreme Court· 1996-12-31· cited 43×
- State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael RileyArizona Supreme Court· 2020-03-10· cited 41×
- State v. CrailHawaii Supreme Court· 2001-10-30· cited 19×
- State v. LemmingCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-05-07· cited 18×
- State v. RiveraCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-12-27· cited 16×
- State v. MedinaCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-05-07· cited 13×
- State v. MonacoCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2004-01-22· cited 13×
- State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier RomeroCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-12-31· cited 9×
- State of Arizona v. Preston Alton StrongArizona Supreme Court· 2024-09-03· cited 9×
- State of Arizona v. Robert Charles GlissendorfCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2013-09-30· cited 7×
- State v. FaufataHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 2003-03-04· cited 5×
- State v. EveridgeCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-01-24· cited 4×
- State v. HernandezCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2019-05-08· cited 2×
- State of Arizona v. Matthew Rueben MonacoCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2004-01-22
- State v. LeotaCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2023-10-17
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 87,848×
- United States v. MarionSupreme Court· 1971-12-20· cited 3,756×
- Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1952-01-02· cited 3,286×
- United States v. LovascoSupreme Court· 1977-10-03· cited 2,170×
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court· 1935-01-21· cited 1,837×
- State v. NashArizona Supreme Court· 1985-01-09· cited 279×
- State v. WillitsArizona Supreme Court· 1964-06-11· cited 207×
- United States v. Alexander T. ValentineNinth Circuit· 1986-03-04· cited 76×
- State v. HunterArizona Supreme Court· 1983-04-13· cited 75×
- State v. LittlejohnSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-05-13· cited 63×
- State v. RodriguezArizona Supreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 56×
- State v. HallArizona Supreme Court· 1981-07-21· cited 47×
- State v. ReffittArizona Supreme Court· 1985-07-10· cited 44×
- State v. EmeryArizona Supreme Court· 1984-06-06· cited 31×
- United States v. Herbert E. OttoThird Circuit· 1984-08-27· cited 29×
- State v. LambArizona Supreme Court· 1984-10-25· cited 23×
- State v. WaltersCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-12-15· cited 21×
- State v. GonzalesArizona Supreme Court· 1984-09-13· cited 20×
- State v. MarksArizona Supreme Court· 1976-03-02· cited 18×
- State v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1982-04-23· cited 17×
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.