Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blackman, 38 P.3d 1192.

60 citing documents.

State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[T]he court should remove for cause any juror who expresses serious misgivings about the ability to be fair and impartial.” ¶ 12 (App. 2002).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 210 ¶ 32; ¶ 12 (App. 2002).
State v. Njike Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Njike Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 76 (App. 2002) (The trial court is in the best position to assess the effect of an argument.).
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
However, we do not assess arguments in isolation;” in context of closing argument “we decline to characterize an isolated linguistic misstep, in the context of an otherwise wholly proper argument, as error.”); ¶¶ 75–76 (App. 2002) (“We do not believe that the prosecutor’s remarks in this case constituted an impermissible comment on Defendant’s failure to testify.
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Taft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wilikinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reversal is warranted when prosecutorial misconduct “so permeated the trial that it probably affected the outcome and denied [the] defendant his due process right to a fair trial.”
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 65 (App. 2002) (noting that the trial court appropriately instructed the jurors that they were not to consider punishment in reaching their verdict); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (“A lesser-included-offense instruction is proper only if (1) the lesser offense is composed of some, but not
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Prosecutorial vouching occurs when (1) “the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness” and when (2) “the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’[] testimony.” ¶ 62 (App. 2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶6 We review a court’s denial of a motion to sever the trials of co-defendants for an abuse of discretion “in light of the evidence before the court at the time the motion was made.” (citations omitted).
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 12 (App. 2002) (holding a court “need not remove jurors who ultimately assure the trial court that they can be fair and impartial.”).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 71 (App. 2002) (“Although counsel may not comment on matters not in evidence before the jury, they may argue reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 42, 48 (App. 2002); see also Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987) (Bruton does not extend "to confession that was not incriminating on its face" but which "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.").
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The trial court is in the best position “to assess whether prospective jurors should be allowed to sit,” ¶ 13 (App. 2002), because “the trial judge has the opportunity to observe the juror’s demeanor and the tenor of his or her answers first hand.”
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The United States Supreme Court held in Bruton that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine witnesses when a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession incriminating the defendant is admitted at their joint trial.” ¶ 42
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
We review a trial court’s severance ruling for an abuse of discretion, “in light of the evidence before the court at the time the motion was made.”