Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bronson, 63 P.3d 1058.

56 citing documents.

State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶21 We review alleged Confrontation Clause violations de novo, ¶ 14 (App. 2003), but apply fundamental, prejudicial error review when the issue of confrontation is raised for the first time on appeal, ¶ 14 (App. 2013).
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 34 (App. 2003) (“Because a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“Evidence is not insubstantial simply because testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from the evidence.”); ¶ 34 (App. 2003) (noting a jury is free to credit or discredit witness testimony) (citation omitted).
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The State repeatedly referred to the breath-test results “throughout trial, and in the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the [breath-test results] at least [twelve] times.” ¶ 33 (App. 2003).
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Because a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.” ¶ 34 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 46 (2000)).
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2003)).
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Because a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.” ¶ 34 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon kemp/davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 129, ¶ 42, 140 P.3d at 912; ¶ 14
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 34 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 46 (2000)).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 34, (“Because a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.”).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14 (App. 2003).
State v. Newhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Newhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Because a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.” ¶ 34, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Taylor-Bertling v. Foley 313 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Although this court generally reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discre tion, ¶ 14 , the question whether double jeopardy applies in a given situation is reviewed de novo.