DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 42 P.3d 1177.

67 citing documents.

  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (refusal to give proposed instruction reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    To require reversal, prosecutorial misconduct must affect the jury’s ability to fairly assess the evidence and be “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” -84 (App. 2002).
  • Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    12 “We review a trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion,” ¶ 31 , and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.
  • State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
    See State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212, 217, ¶ 14, (“[I]f a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege survives during a direct appeal, it also survives pending post-conviction relief.”).
  • State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
    A judge possesses “extensive knowledge about the case” when the judge has heard, for example, “the state’s entire case and a portion of defendant’s.” State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212, 217-18, ¶ 18, -83 (App. 2002).
  • Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    5 accurately communicates the law.”
  • Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    “Every correct statement of law from appellate decisions need not be included in an instruction so long as the instruction accurately communicates the law.”
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    3 3 ¶ 8 We generally review a trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 31 , but review de novo whether the instructions given the jury properly state the law
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    P.3d 1177 (App. 2002) (trial court’s failure to give instruction not reversible error unless defendant prejudiced).