Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wilson, 914 P.2d 1346.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
To satisfy the “consciousness of guilt” requirement, “[i]t is not necessary to show that law enforcement officers were pursuing the defendant at the time.”
State v. Herndon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Herndon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Although merely leaving the scene is not evidence that warrants a flight instruction, the instruction may be given “where the circumstances of leaving the crime scene reveal a defendant’s consciousness of guilt.”
In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(restitution amount reasonable when there was no evidence that “directly controverted [the victim’s] testimony”).
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In determining the doctrine’s scope, the witness’s “response must be ‘pertinent,’” meaning “it must be specifically responsive to the invitation.”
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The State is not required to show that law enforcement officers pursued the defendant at the time, but “merely leaving the crime scene is not tantamount to flight.”
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
George likens his conduct to that of the defendant in State v. Wilson, who did not leave the crime scene in haste or pursuit, but instead “went home and awaited the expected arrival of the police.” (holding that inclusion of a flight instruction was in error).
In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We will affirm the order if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim's loss, and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, Stephanie B., 204 Ariz. at 469-70, ¶ 15.
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(stating in dicta that it is generally impermissible for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment rights).
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Andrew A., , 58 P.3d at 528 ; , (in reviewing restitution order, appellate court may not “substitute [its] own assessment of the evidence for that of the trial court”).
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“The invited error doctrine applies to situations where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence relevant or require some response or rebuttal.”
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
give instruction based on defendant walking and driving away from scene); , (error to *133 give instruction based on defendant leaving jurisdiction by going to Texas); -79 , -75 (1970) (error to give instruction where defendant merely walked away from scene of knifing); (error to give instruction based on the defendant driving home from scene).
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
The rule of invited error applies when a party elicits evidence or comments that “make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” , , (observing that the response must be “pertinent”).
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Palenkas 933 P.2d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996