Arizona Supreme Court· 7/16/1982

State v. Hicks

Citations

649 P.2d 267
133 Ariz. 64
1982 Ariz. LEXIS 226

How courts have described this case

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

noting that recent cases have consistently held that a one-man show-up at the scene of the crime or near the time of the criminal act is permissible
defendant’s rambling statement in response to detective’s statement that he was willing to end interrogation showed that defendant had not exercised his right to terminate questioning
defendant’s “incessant rambling in the face of the detective’s express willingness to terminate the interrogation shows that [defendant] retained the right to cut off questioning”
alcoholic character trait as opposed to how that trait influenced the defendant during the crime
expert testimony on effects of alcohol intoxication not allowed because jury has adequate knowledge; therefore, jury must decide defendant’s intent the same way a psychiatrist would — “by looking at the facts surrounding the shooting”
“Miranda does not require the police to force an accused to remain silent or to turn a deaf ear toward an accused who insists upon talking.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holohan, Gordon, Hays, Cameron, Feldman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.