Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. King, 514 P.2d 1032.

92 citing documents.

State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
When the State’s argument goes beyond the limits of permissible argument, the issue is whether the argument (1) was “so unduly prejudicial as to have amounted to a denial of a fair trial” and (2) was “likely to have influenced the jury in reaching a verdict.” Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. at 222 ¶ 109 (–43 (1973)).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To that end, “[a] 13 STATE v. LOPEZ Decision of the Court prosecutor must not convey his personal belief about the credibility of a witness,” ¶ 54 (2003) (citation omitted), or “a defendant’s guilt or innocence,”
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, (finding the prosecutor vouched in arguing “the State wouldn’t have put [the witness] on the witness stand if [it] didn’t believe every word out of his mouth”); –43 (1973) (finding the prosecutor vouched in arguing “I don’t think [the witness] ever lied to you .
State v. Larrazolo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Larrazolo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The trial court’s admission of prior convictions for impeachment purposes is discretionary, and Larrazolo provides no legal support that there is a limit on the number of prior convictions a trial court may allow.
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
Even if a prosecutor’s argument extends beyond the limits of permissible argument, the consideration is whether the argument was “so unduly prejudicial as to have amounted to a denial of a fair trial” and whether, “under the circumstances of a particular case, the remarks of counsel were likely to have influenced the jury in reaching a verdict.” –43 (1973) (concerning a prosecutor expressing personal opinion, vouching for state’s witnesses, and misstating testimony).
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(holding prosecutor’s expression of personal opinion as to defendant’s guilt and at least two avowals as to a witness’s credibility did not prejudice the defendant, so as to warrant reversal, because the court instructed the jury that the lawyers’ statements were not evidence).
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
at ¶ 20; , (“[OJmissions in the giving of instructions which were not raised at trial will not be considered unless the error is so fundamental that it is manifest the defendant did not receive a fair trial.”).
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
(holding prosecutor's expression of personal opinion as to defendant's guilt and at least two avowals as to a witness's credibility did not prejudice the defendant, in *842 part, because court instructed jury that closing argument was not evidence)
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
*603 A criminal defendant’s right to testify on his own behalf “does not include the unqualified right to have brought out on cross-examination only those facts which are favorable to his case.”
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
(“The fact that its application may have prevented [appellant] from taking the stand is not material.”)
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
There is no danger that the jury found that appellant killed the victim while attempting sexual assault based on an inaccurate definition of the word “attempt.” , , People v. Nelson, 73 Ill.App.3d 593 , 29 Ill.Dec.
State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
State v. Bailey 647 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1982
State v. Harrington, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
We must also determine, however, whether appellant was prejudiced thereby because, as we have said before, “[i]t does not necessarily follow from the fact of improper argument that the jury was improperly influenced.”
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
The omitted instruction did not deal with the definition of the elements of the crime, , but went to the issue of credibility.
State v. Vargas 618 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1980
State v. Vargas 618 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1980
17A A.R.S., Rule 29(a), Rules of Supreme Court, DR7-1Q6(C)(4).
State v. Noble 612 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1980
State v. Noble 612 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1980
State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Islas 582 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Islas 582 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
We reach the same result as to another objectionable portion of the prosecutor’s argument: “I’m aghast at the defense for trying, objecting to the fact that agent Parella is not here, when he objected on redirect examination—■ “MR. SCHOLL: I object, your Honor.