Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Corona, 932 P.2d 1356.

44 citing documents.

State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(Argument of counsel is permitted if it is “sufficiently linked to the evidence.”).
State v. Olaoye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Olaoye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
The State improperly shifts the burden when it implies a duty upon the defendant to prove his innocence or the negation of an element, and otherwise errs when it comments upon the failure of a defendant to testify or present a defense
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(error to instruct on flight when the "only evidence regarding the defendant's exit was .
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
He argues, however, that such references are limited to circumstances in which it is clear the defendant had access to the evidence, -90 , -61 (App. 1997).
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding prosecutor’s characterization of the witnesses as “truthful” did not constitute vouching because “the prosecutor made clear that it was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and her characterization of the witnesses as truthful was sufficiently linked to the evidence.”) (i
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(prosecutor's characterization of the witnesses as truthful did not constitute vouching because prosecutor made clear it was up to the jury to determine credibility of witnesses, and sufficiently linked argument to the evidence); cf. United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (use of "w
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“she’s been, I think, honest” and “I think he was an honest man” not improper vouching viewed in context of overall closing argument).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“she’s been, I think, honest” and “I think he was an honest man” not improper vouching in context of overall closing argument).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
7 STATE v. GUINARD Decision of the Court and told the jury, “What this case comes down to is the credibility of [the informant], and it’s your job to judge the credibility.” (prosecutor’s remarks that witnesses testified “truthfully,” when viewed in context, were sufficiently linked to trial evidence).
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 “[W]hen the prosecutor makes clear that it was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses, improper vouching does not occur so long as the prosecutor’s characterization of the witnesses as truthful was sufficiently linked to the evidence.” ¶ 6, ( (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
cf. United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that use of “we know” was proper because it was used “to marshal evidence actually admitted at trial and reasonable inferences from the evidence, not to vouch for witness veracity or suggest that evidence not
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
And when the prosecutor makes “clear that it was for the jury to ‘determine the credibility of’ the witnesses,” improper vouching does not occur so long as the prosecutor’s “characterization of the witnesses as truthful was sufficiently linked to the evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
The state was not unreasonable in suggesting that Edmisten’s failure to produce the witness gave rise to an inference that the witness’s testimony would have been unfavorable to Edmisten.4 See Corcoran, 153 Ariz. at 4 -90, -61 (App. 1997), for the proposition that the state cannot comment on the defendant’s failure to call an expert witness when no evidence has been presented that the defendant consulted an expert.
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Detrich, 178 Ariz. at 383 , 873 P.2d at 1305
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
An offense is considered a lesser-included of a greater offense “if (1) the included offense is always a constituent part of the greater offense or (2) if the charging document described the lesser offense even though it would not always form a constituent part of the greater offense.”
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
¶ 2 In the second petition for post-conviction relief, French raised the following claims: (1) , was a significant change in law, requiring the state to show that an accused committed other acts by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the court’s instruction characterizing prior acts as “bad acts” , (3) the sentence had to be amended in accordance with our memorandum decision; (4) , and State v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, , some of his flat-time terms must be modified to make him eligibl