Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery, 287 P.3d 830.

32 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Equal protection under the federal and Arizona constitutions is “essentially the same.” ¶ 7 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2012)).
State v. Cunnington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140, 142 ¶¶ 12, 21; ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (reviewing a constitutional issue not raised in the trial court for fundamental error).
State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 13-3821(A); ¶ 9 (App. 2004); ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2012).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 14 (App. 2006); ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (stating that, when a defendant fails to object to an alleged error at trial, he must affirmatively show prejudice, and not merely that the error may reasonably have contributed to the verdict).
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A law which does not infringe on any fundamental rights, however, is subject to rational basis review, and is constitutional if it “relate[s] to a legitimate government purpose.” -19, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2012)).
State v. Orona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Orona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The right to equal protection, however, does not prohibit all classification of persons; only classification that is “unreasonable.” ¶ 13
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶7 The effects of the federal and state equal protection guarantees “are essentially the same,” ¶ 13 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 15 (App. 1999)), each generally requiring the law treat all similarly situated persons alike, ¶ 32 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 19 (App. 1999)).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cardona Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, ¶ 9, (recognizing that, if a defendant fails to object to an alleged error at trial, he must affirmatively show prejudice, not merely that the error may have contributed to the verdict).
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Russo, 219 Ariz. at 225, ¶ 5 , 196 P.3d at 828 ; ¶ 13 , (“The effects of the state and federal provisions are essentially the same.”) (internal quotation omitted).