Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harm, 340 P.3d 1110.

343 citing documents.

State v. Rodgers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rodgers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hernandez 439 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hernandez 439 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Meegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Meegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
to] have contact with the victim(s) in any form, unless approved in writing by the [Adult Probation Department].” This condition “include[d] indirect contact which extend[ed] to family members and employees of the victim as well as 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶¶ 2-3, n.2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Fulton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Fulton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Majenty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The State charged 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Majenty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
According to Majenty, she had been drinking alcohol at her aunt’s home in Peach Springs earlier in the day and then found herself in the trailer, where she 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Paulson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Paulson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶¶ 2-3 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The prosecution played the video of Dulin stealing the laptop for the jury as the police officer narrated and presented still photographs, taken from the surveillance video, along with 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
DISCUSSION I. Due Process ¶3 Elise argues the trial court violated her due process rights by relying upon a ruling preventing her codefendants from raising a defense 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Graff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Graff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶¶ 2-3 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).