DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Duzan, 862 P.2d 223.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶29 “There are two types of prosecutorial vouching: (1) when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, and (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” (internal quotation omitted).
  • State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (concluding that prosecutorial comments that are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper).
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    his personal opinions during rebuttal closing argument by repeatedly using the phrases “the State submits” and “the State would submit.” “There are two types of prosecutorial vouching: (1) when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, and (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” (internal quotation omitted).
  • State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Prosecutorial comments which are fair rebuttal to comments made initially by the defense are acceptable.”
  • Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Premium Cigars Intern. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Ins. 96 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    A trial court is given considerable discretion in resolving those issues, , and so we do not review its decisions until they are made.
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
    See State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. at 21 , 926 P.2d at 488 ; State v. Duzan, 176 *
  • State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (charge defining reasonable doubt does not constitute fundamental error); but see, State v. Chavarria, 145 Ariz. Adv.Rep.
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993