Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kiper, 887 P.2d 592.

230 citing documents.

State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arteaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arteaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
"We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant.” ¶ 2 , ( , ).
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(holding that the failure to object allows a party to use admitted evidence for any purpose).
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“Because the trial court is best able to balance the probative value versus the prejudicial effect, it is afforded wide discretion in deciding the admissibility of such evidence.”).
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
Gusler v. Wilkinson 18 P.3d 702 Ariz. 2001
ict in the presence of the jury “enable[s] the court and the parties to ascertain with certainty that a unanimous verdict has in fact been reached and that no juror has been coerced or induced to agree to a verdict to which he has not fully assented.” Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9, 17 (1st Cir.1958)
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Ketchum 956 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ketchum 956 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jacobson, 18 Ariz.App.
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Division One of this court has held that a jury verdict is final and not subject to reconsideration “if (1) the deliberations are over, (2) the result is announced in open court, and (3) the jury is polled and no dissent is registered.”
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995