Arizona Supreme Court· 3/12/1970

State v. Gonzales

Citations

466 P.2d 388
105 Ariz. 434
1970 Ariz. LEXIS 286

How courts have described this case

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

noting closing arguments are not evidence, and “counsel are permitted to comment on the evidence already introduced and to argue reasonable inferences therefrom”
finding the prosecutor’s remarks that defense counsel was talking “out of two sides of his mouth” and referring to him as a “poor, humble, simple little fellow who was playing games with the jury” were improper
no abuse of discretion in denying motion for mistrial based on prosecutor’s accusing defense counsel of talking with a “forked tongue”
“attorneys are not permitted to introduce or comment upon evidence which has not previously been offered and placed before the jury” during closing arguments
“Our law 8 STATE v. CAHILL Decision of the Court permits trial counsel wide latitude in presenting closing arguments to the jury.”
“[E]xcessive and emotional language is the bread and butter weapon of counsel’s forensic arsenal, limited by the principle that attorneys are not permitted to introduce or comment upon evidence which has not previously been offered and placed before the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hays, Lockwood, Struckmeyer, Udall, McFarland, JJ-

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 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.