Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Eagle, 992 P.2d 1122.

27 citing documents.

State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-32, ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (recognizing that double jeopardy may be implicated when “the same act or transaction” violates two distinct criminal statutes); ¶ 12 (App. 1998) (“[W]hen the charged possession for sale is incidental to the charged transportation for sale, it is
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See e.g., Price, 218 Ariz. at 314, ¶ 9 (armed robbery and aggravated assault convictions did not violate double jeopardy); ¶ 22 (App. 1998) (kidnapping and sexual assault convictions did not violate double jeopardy); (burglary and robbery convictions did not violate double jeopardy); (kidnapping and robbery convictions did not violate double jeop
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“A neutral explanation for a peremptory strike need not be coupled with some form of objective verification.” Lucas, 199 Ariz. at 368 ¶ 9, 18 P.3d at 162 ( ¶ 11, ).
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 27, (emphasis in original) (citations omitted), aff’d, P.2d 395 (2000).
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
The instruction serves to clarify the permissive inferences available in the case, and the state’s proffered reason for failing to preserve material evidence is relevant to what inferences, if any, the jury actually draws.
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
“Although not dispositive, ‘the fact that the state accepted other [minority] jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive.’” ¶ 15, (alteration in original) ( ¶ 12, ).
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
But the fact that four African-Americans served as either jurors or alternates is “‘indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive.’” State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, ¶ 23
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
Although not dispositive, “the - 6 - fact that the state accepted other [minority] jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive.” ¶ 12, aff’d, P.2d 395 (2000).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
However, although “the fact that the state accepted other Hispanic jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive,” it is “not dispositive.” , (citing Turner v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1248, 1254 (9th Cir.1997) (presence of minority jurors does not preclude successful Batson challenge)).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
However, although 10 “the fact that the state accepted other Hispanic jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive,” it is “not dispositive.” (citing Turner v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1248, 1254 (9th Cir. 1997) (presence of minority jurors does not preclude successful Batson challenge)).
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
and need not be repeated here.