Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lucas, 18 P.3d 160.

39 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson 509 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2022
See Batson, 476 U.S. at 97; ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (“Once a discriminatory reason has been uncovered—either inherent or pretextual— this reason taints any other neutral reason for the strike.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Payton v. Kearse, 495 S.E.2d 205, 210 (S.C.
State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
State v. Armenta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Armenta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 400, ¶ 52; ¶ 6 (App. 2001).
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2242–43 (2019); ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
That explanation "must be more than a mere denial of improper motive, but it need not be 'persuasive, or even plausible.'" ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995) (per curiam)).
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Miller-El I, 537 U.S. at 340
State v. Oviedo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Oviedo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶8 We employ a three-step process in determining whether a peremptory strike violates Batson: (1) the opposing party must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the proponent must offer a race- neutral basis for the strike; and (3) the opponent must persuade the court that the proffered reason is a pretext and the strike was “actually based on race.” ¶ 7
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
This court defers “to the trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” ¶ 6
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
(App. 6 The state’s failure to comply with our appellate rules provides an alternative basis for us to reach the merits of the Batson claim.
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶¶ 24-26 , (holding race-neutral prosecutor’s explanation that he had struck juror with Hispanic surname in part because she had difficulty understanding English); , (finding that exclusion of juror because of his profession was race-neutral); United States v. Griffin, 194 F.3d 808, 825-26 (7th Cir.1999) (same).
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 6 , Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Co., 11 Ariz.App.
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
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
“We review de novo the trial court’s application of the law.” ¶ 6
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
“We review de novo the trial court’s application of the law.” , cert.
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002