Arizona Supreme Court· 2/26/1986
State v. Day
Citations
- 715 P.2d 743
- 148 Ariz. 490
- 1986 Ariz. LEXIS 186
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that defendant charged with various sexual assaults not deprived of due process rights
- holding that defendant charged with various sexual assaults not deprived of due process rights
- noting that prejudice in failing to sever is mitigated because the same evidence would have been admissible in the separate trials
- noting that prejudice in failing to sever is mitigated because the same evidence would have been admissible in the separate trials
- nine consecutive life terms plus a consecutive term of 11.25 years for sexually assaulting eight women, including two minors, among other criminal acts
- nine consecutive life terms plus a consecutive term of 11.25 years for sexually assaulting eight women, including two minors, among other criminal acts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gordon, Holohan, Hays, Cameron, Feldman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. AtwoodArizona Supreme Court· 1992-07-10· cited 361×
- State v. MurrayArizona Supreme Court· 1995-10-26· cited 217×
- State v. LaGrandArizona Supreme Court· 1987-01-30· cited 129×
- State v. StuardArizona Supreme Court· 1993-11-18· cited 121×
- State v. DunlapCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1996-09-05· cited 108×
- State v. FierroaArizona Supreme Court· 1990-12-18· cited 105×
- State v. ComerArizona Supreme Court· 1990-07-31· cited 104×
- State v. AguilarArizona Supreme Court· 2004-09-16· cited 99×
- State v. YoungbloodArizona Supreme Court· 1993-01-07· cited 70×
- State v. IvesArizona Supreme Court· 1996-11-07· cited 63×
- State v. JonasArizona Supreme Court· 1990-04-17· cited 61×
- State v. TuckerArizona Supreme Court· 1988-06-02· cited 57×
- State v. WaldenArizona Supreme Court· 1995-10-10· cited 56×
- State v. MoormanArizona Supreme Court· 1987-10-06· cited 45×
- State v. HardwickCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1995-11-07· cited 44×
- State v. HurleyArizona Supreme Court· 1987-07-02· cited 42×
- State v. BaileyArizona Supreme Court· 1989-04-13· cited 41×
- State v. DixonArizona Supreme Court· 1987-03-19· cited 36×
- Robert Walden v. David ShinnNinth Circuit· 2021-03-12· cited 34×
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court of MesaCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-02-26· cited 24×
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-03-18· cited 6,700×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court· 1983-06-28· cited 4,242×
- State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court· 1983-01-11· cited 423×
- State v. DessureaultArizona Supreme Court· 1969-04-30· cited 227×
- State v. WillitsArizona Supreme Court· 1964-06-11· cited 207×
- State v. McCallArizona Supreme Court· 1983-11-09· cited 164×
- State v. RoscoeArizona Supreme Court· 1984-12-28· cited 125×
- State v. BracyArizona Supreme Court· 1985-06-10· cited 96×
- State v. ViaArizona Supreme Court· 1985-06-12· cited 90×
- State v. LujanArizona Supreme Court· 1979-11-26· cited 80×
- State v. CruzArizona Supreme Court· 1983-10-06· cited 75×
- State v. CocioArizona Supreme Court· 1985-11-07· cited 73×
- State v. TreadawayArizona Supreme Court· 1977-07-11· cited 68×
- State v. McFarlinArizona Supreme Court· 1973-12-20· cited 66×
- State v. RamosArizona Supreme Court· 1982-06-30· cited 62×
- State v. WileyArizona Supreme Court· 1985-04-23· cited 60×
- State v. LeslieArizona Supreme Court· 1985-10-09· cited 54×
- State v. MeekerArizona Supreme Court· 1984-12-21· cited 51×
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.