Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pool v. Superior Court, 677 P.2d 261.

326 citing documents.

State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct. of Pima, –09, –72 (1984) (emphasis added).
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(finding the appellant’s alleged errors moot where the jury did not convict the appellant) ().
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
ing on Penny’s motion for a new trial, the trial court found “no prosecutorial misconduct occurred in any of these incidents alone or in combination.” The court noted that “the prosecution may have struck hard blows in this case,” but “it did not strike any foul ones in either its cross-examination of defense expert witnesses or in its summations to the jury.” And, -09, -72 (1984), the court further determined that, even if any of the incidents constituted misconduct, it “was not ‘intentional co
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-09, -72 (1984) (double jeopardy bars retrial if mistrial was caused by the prosecutor’s intentional misconduct); ¶ 26, (cumulative error doctrine is recognized in context of prosecutorial misconduct because “a defendant must demons
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” (footnote omitted).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant 8 STATE v. OCHOA Decision of the Court impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” –09, -72 (1984).
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” -09 (1984).
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.”
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶24 Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety.” -09, -72 (1984).
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
ult of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.’” -39, ¶ 11, -27 (App. 2007) (-09, -72 (1984)).
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
erely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.” -39, ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (–09 (1984)).
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 6 , ¶ 2 , Pool v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cnty.
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” -09, –72 (1984).
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pima Cnty., we nevertheless find such authority helpful in this case.
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999) (failure to disclose exculpatory evidence); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-92 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269-71 (1959) (false testimony); -53, -30 (1989) (newly discovered evidence); (prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
OMERO Decision of the Court whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.'" -39, ¶ 11, -27 (App. 2007) (-09, -72 (1984)).
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-09, -72 (1984) (noting prosecutorial misconduct is not merely “legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial .
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Prosecutorial misconduct is “conduct that is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial.” ¶ 36, (-09, -72 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
r knows to be improper and prejudicial and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.’” 5 -39 ¶ 11, -27 (App. 2007) (-09, -72 (1984)).
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
egal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial.’” -39 ¶ 11, -27 (App. 2007) (-09, -72 (1984)).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
¶116 Counsel’s “[s]uggestion by question or innuendo of unfavorable matter which is not in evidence and which would be irrelevant, or for which no proof exists[,] is improper and can constitute misconduct.” Pool v. Superior Court (Fahringer)
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
osecutorial misconduct “is not merely the result of legal error, negligence, mistake, or insignificant impropriety, but, taken as a whole, amounts to intentional conduct which the prosecutor knows to be improper and prejudicial, and which he pursues for any improper purpose with indifference to a significant resulting danger of mistrial or reversal.” -09 , -72 (1984).