Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Salcido, 681 P.2d 925.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“In criminal cases, a prosecutor has a special obligation to avoid ‘improper suggestions, insinuations, and[] especially[] assertions of personal knowledge.’”) (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) (modification in original)).
State v. Dompkowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dompkowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
He argues “[t]here is a strong probability that the subsequent verdict was influenced by [the State’s] remarks,”
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ore testifying was just her “doing a good job” to ensure she testified “accurately.” Impermissible prosecutorial vouching occurs “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [or] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” ().
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
the most powerful investigative tool in law enforcement at 5 STATE v. GRADY Decision of the Court this time” improperly vouched for the strength of the State’s case by suggesting evidence not presented to the jury supported the evidence presented), –44, –27 (App. 1984) (concluding that prosecutor’s argument that “I went over with the agents and saw the [evidence]” constituted improper vouching both as an assertion of personal knowledge and by directing the jurors’ attention to facts not in evide
State v. Palmer 199 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Palmer 199 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(Division Two), -35 , -34 (App.1992) (Division One).
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
(prosecutor may not “testify” to matters not in evidence or vouch for the credibility of witnesses).
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
(quoting United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1980)).