Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Baldenegro, 932 P.2d 275.

32 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(defendant convicted of aggravated assault challenged denial of Rule 20 motion based on victim’s failure to testify; rejecting defendant’s challenge, court held that “a jury could reasonably 1 Martinez argues that the cellphone data “could not be used as proof of any of the elements of stalking” beca
State v. Aguilar Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Aguilar Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the core of the statute has no standing to attack the statute.” ¶ 8 (2013) (noting that a defendant whose conduct fit “squarely within the statute’s ambit” could not challenge the statute as vague).
State v. Montes Flores 428 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Montes Flores 428 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 4 (App. 1999) (proof of "apprehension of imminent physical injury" may be found in victim's demeanor while testifying about the incident as well as acts victim took in response to defendant's conduct); (evidence sufficient to allow jury to "infer that [victim] acted out of fear or apprehension").
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(jurors can find the defendant “guilty as an accomplice” even if they “believed that [the defendant] drove the car and [a passenger] fired the shots”).
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 Horton asserts that the State did not present evidence that the victims reacted with apprehension or fear.
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“A defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the core of the statute has no standing to attack the statute.”).
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶27 Finally, within his argument, P.2d 275 (App. 1996), requires that at least two statutorily defined criteria for gang membership be present before evidence of gang affiliation may be admissible.
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Dickens, 187 Ariz. at 19 n. 7, 926 P.2d at 486 n. 7; -16 , -81 (App.1996); see also United States v. Soliman, 813 F.2d 277, 279 (9th Cir.1987) (“Evidence should not be treated as ‘other crimes’ evidence when ‘the evidence concerning the [“other”] act and the evidence concerning the crime charged are inextricably intertwined.’ ”), quoting United State
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(jurors could have found defendant guilty as accomplice to drive-by shooting based on his having driven car from which other occupant fired gun); ¶¶ 8, 24 , -09, 212-13 (App.2004) (finding proper factual and legal basis for defenda
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, , (upholding accomplice liability theory for aggravated assault).
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Distinguished State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
¶ 5 -14 , -79 (App.1996), on which Garza relies.
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-15 , -80 (App.1996), we repeated that ruling with respect to freedom of assembly.
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997