Court of Appeals of Arizona· 3/12/1996

State v. Sainz

Citations

924 P.2d 474
186 Ariz. 470
212 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 19
1996 Ariz. App. LEXIS 48

How courts have described this case

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

evaluating circumstances to determine whether trial absence was voluntary or involuntary
“Had the trial court considered defendant’s confinement, the only conclusion that could have been reached was that defendant’s absence was involuntary.”
under “Rule 9.1, the trial court must, if asked, determine whether the defendant’s absence was, in fact, voluntary.”
Rule 9.1 constitutional only if defendant eventually afforded hearing “to determine whether his absence was, in fact, voluntary”
in determining whether a defendant’s absence is voluntary or involuntary, the superior court must consider all the facts presented to it on the issue
“If subsequently discovered facts show that a defendant’s absence was not voluntary, then it is error to ignore the reality of the situation and adhere to the limited facts known to the trial court at the time of the defendant’s absence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Voss, Gerber, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 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.