DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dunlap, 930 P.2d 518.

128 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    If the jury declares that it is unable to reach a verdict as to both the greater and the lesser, an Allen charge may be given, or the judge may “inquire of the jurors to determine whether and how court and counsel can assist them in their deliberative process.” Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    Accordingly, while a defendant must do more than simply speculate that the unpreserved items would have been helpful to his case, see, -64, -41 (App. 1996); he is entitled to an instruction if he can demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been material and potentially useful to a defense theory supported by the evidence.
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    -57, -34 (App. 1996) (no reversible error where motive evidence, though erroneously excluded, cumulative); Burris, 131 Ariz. at 567, 643 P.2d at 12 (no reversible error where witness’s motive and interest “quite clear” in record, notwithstanding rejected testimony of civil lawsuit).
  • Gamboa v. Metzler 224 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Gamboa v. Metzler 224 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    ¶ 17 Additionally, to merit reversal, a party “must show they incurred some harm as a result of [a] court’s time limitations.” Brown, 194 Ariz. at 91, ¶ 30 , 977 P.2d at 813 ; , (holding that “proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim, and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for ...
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    We will not set aside the trial court’s decision unless the court exercised discretion that was “manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.”
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
    Under Rule 106, excluded portions of a statement may be introduced if necessary “to explain the admitted portion, place the admitted portion in context, avoid misleading the trier-of-faet, and insure a fair and impartial understanding of the [statement].” -55 , -33 (App.1996).
  • State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    quoting United States v. Anagnostou, 974 F.2d 939, 942 (7th Cir.1992) (to show actual prejudice "`defendant must present concrete evidence showing material harm'").
  • State v. Moore 56 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Moore 56 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    “Error is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.”
  • State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State of Arizona v. Alice C. Jeffrey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 113 S. Ct. 933, 122 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1993); P.2d 518 (App. 1996).
  • State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    at 336 n., 102 L.Ed.2d at 288 n.; , (state must preserve only evidence that could be expected to have significance in suspect’s defense).
  • State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Medina 949 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Medina 949 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    we elaborated on that to require a showing that the witness would have testified, that the witness would have been credible to a jury and that the testimony would have affected the trial’s outcome.
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (“[T]rial court did not know the numerical division of the jurors’ votes or which way the jury was leaning.”).