Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tsosie, 832 P.2d 700.

30 citing documents.

State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Despite this broad latitude afforded prosecutors, constitutional guarantees of due process protect criminal defendants against prosecutorial vindictiveness, which occurs when the state “retaliates against a defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right,”
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Coffelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bush Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (purported prosecutorial vindictiveness in the context of plea bargaining process); United States v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1976) (vindictive prosecution apparent when misdemeanor charge dismissed after defendant asserted his right to trial and State reindicted with felony charge based on same conduct); (subsequently charging a felony based on same conduct underlying original misdemeanor charge, which was dismissed for a violation
State v. Westerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Westerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[T]he defendant bears the initial burden of establishing the appearance of vindictiveness.”
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶20 “A defendant may such demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness by proving objectively that the prosecutor’s charging decision was motivated by a desire to punish him for doing something that the law plainly allowed him to do.” (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Glen Leo Gagnon 340 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Glen Leo Gagnon 340 P.3d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(“[I]n Arizona, first-degree murder is only one crime whether it is premeditated murder or a felony murder.”); , (“It is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor to determine whether to file criminal charges and which charges to file.”).
State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-86 , -87 (1984) (discussing surrounding circumstances before concluding that post-trial enhancement allegation did not give rise to presumption of vindictiveness); , , 704 *449 (App.1992) (applying totality of circumstances to pretrial charging decision: “[T]he critical question ...
State v. Brun 950 P.2d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Brun 950 P.2d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
A defendant may prove prosecutorial vindictiveness by “proving ‘objectively that the prosecutor’s charging decision was motivated by a desire to punish him for doing something that the law plainly allowed him to do.’ ” , (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 384 , 102 S.Ct.
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 868 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 868 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-81405-S

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by