Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bruggeman, 779 P.2d 823.

72 citing documents.

State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” (citations omitted)); 44, ¶¶ 17, 34 (2022) (holding that “[e]ven though the court improperly instructed the jury” that defendant “could be found guilty of
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(stating that we do not evaluate jury instructions out of context and the “[c]losing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions”).
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 32 (App. 2024); ¶ 14 (App. 2014).
State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” (internal citation omitted); ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (“[A]lthough ‘arguments of counsel generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court,’ in some trials, the arguments of counsel can cure or obviate instructional ambiguity or error.” (ci
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Sergio Fierro Jr 517 P.3d 635 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sergio Fierro Jr 517 P.3d 635 Ariz. 2022
See, (concluding the “error was not fatal” after determining “the final arguments .
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 52–53
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 31 (“In applying the ‘could have’ standard, an appellate court should examine the entire record, including the parties’ theories and arguments as well as the trial evidence.”); (“Appellate courts do not evaluate jury instructions out of context.
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (explaining appellate courts “consider [jury] instructions in context and in conjunction with the closing arguments of counsel” when evaluating their sufficiency); (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(appellate courts may consider closing arguments to assess whether jury instructions were adequate).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
("Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.").
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” (citations omitted).
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
7 (closing arguments may be considered in assessing adequacy of jury instructions).
State v. Boucher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boucher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In evaluating instructions, we consider them in their entirety, Granville, 211 Ariz. at 471, ¶ 8 (citation omitted), and within the context of the trial, (citation omitted) (“Appellate courts do not evaluate jury instructions out of context.”).
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), in some trials, the arguments of counsel can cure or obviate instructional ambiguity or error, , (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(closing arguments may be taken into account when assessing adequacy of jury instructions).
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Furthermore, the “[c]losing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).