DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

72 citing documents.

  • State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    This court reviews the adequacy of jury instructions in their entirety to determine if they accurately reflect the law, ¶ 75, recognizing that “[c]losing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions,” (citation omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (alleged ambiguity in instruction alleviated by prosecutor’s closing argument); (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).
  • State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).
  • State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    See, P.3d 1134 (2001); P.2d 1220 (1984); P.2d 823 (App. 1989); P.2d 482 (App. 1989); P.2d 1034 (App. 1982).
  • State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    ¶ 5 In addition, any alleged ambiguity in the instruction was alleviated by the prosecutor’s closing argument, which made clear that the jury had to find that Morales was “impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol.” , (court may consider closing arguments of counsel when evaluating jury instructions).
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    (“Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”).
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
    (“Appellate courts do not evaluate jury instructions out of context— Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” (citations omitted)).
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Furthermore, “[cjlosing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Perez 836 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    the court assumed without analysis that the penalty assessment was a fine.