Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 72 P.3d 343.

78 citing documents.

State v. Lua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (appellate courts consider jury instructions, “in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel.”).
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Further, “in evaluating the jury instructions, we consider the instructions in context and in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel.”
State v. Oman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Oman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(jury instructions evaluated in context and in conjunction with closing arguments of counsel).
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Further, “In evaluating the jury instructions, we consider the instructions in context and in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel.” ¶ 11
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
iguez-Rosario, ¶¶ 7-8, 19-20 , 811 (App.2008) (vacating conviction based on juror coercion and erroneous denial of motion for mistrial under rales of criminal procedure); ¶¶ 27-28 , (reversing conviction based on improper admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evid.); ¶¶ 2, 7 , 346 (App.2003) (conviction reversed based on erroneous jury instruction under state law).
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
It is also fundamental error for the trial judge to fail to instruct on vital matters “even if not requested by the defense.” ¶ 11 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(appellate court will consider jury instructions “in context and in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel”)
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 7, 10 , 347 (App.2003).
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
2 In our evaluation of the “jury instructions, we consider the instructions in the context of and in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel.” ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction “on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” P.2d 1006 (1998).