Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ramos, 330 P.3d 987.

93 citing documents.

State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶6 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must prove: “(1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 22 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 145 (2004)).
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 25 (App. 2014) (citations omitted).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
10 STATE v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court ¶50 “When determining whether a prosecutor’s statements improperly vouched for a witness’s credibility, the statements must be considered in context.” ¶ 28 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Criticism of defense theories and tactics, on the other hand, “is a proper subject of closing argument.” ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Criticism of defense theories and tactics, on the other hand, “is a proper subject of closing argument.” ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Whether a prosecutor’s comment is improper depends upon the context in which it was made and whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive it to be a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” ¶ 13 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 33 (2003)).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19).
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although the State may not comment on the integrity of opposing counsel in closing arguments, “[c]riticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument.” ¶ 25, (quotations and citation omitted).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Criticized State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Lynch, 238 Ariz. at 96, ¶ 28, 357 P.3d at 131; 237-38, ¶¶ 2-4, 24-25, 994-95 (App. 2014) (concluding the prosecutor was merely criticizing defense tactics, rather than impugning defense counsel’s integrity, when claiming the defense had attempted to raise distractions by focusing on the prosecutor’s failure to prove the defendant’s ownersh
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶16 Assuming the State’s comments supported an unfavorable inference against Esposito and therefore resulted in fundamental error, ¶ 13 (App. 2014); see also A.R.S.
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8, (harmless error review used when objections are raised at trial to a prosecutor’s arguments or comments) ( ¶ 18, (“Reviewing courts consider alleged trial error under the harmless error standard when a defen
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-66, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (prosecutor's repeated argument that witness was "credible in every way possible" and that her demeanor "was not faked" did not, in context, constitute impermissible vouching); ¶ 30 (App. 2014) (prosecutor's statement that "what motive would [the witnesses] have to lie in a case like this?"
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
Moreover, “[c]riticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument.” ¶ 25, (quoting United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997)).
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(impermissible comment on defendant’s failure to testify was error, but harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt); ¶¶ 17–18, (defendant fails to meet burden of establishing prejudice from impermissible comment if overwhelming evidence of guilt exists in record).
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–35, ¶¶ 18-20, –94 (App. 2014) (concluding that although prosecutor’s comment was fundamental error, defendant failed to establish prejudice).
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014