Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Decello, 550 P.2d 633.

26 citing documents.

Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
–57 (1976) (applying new rule of criminal procedure to pending case where new rule was amended to “make it even more clear”).
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 640 (1974); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 610-11 (1965); 439, 1055 (1986)
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d at 607; (finding fundamental error based on prosecutor’s comment to the jury that the defendant “never answered” where he was on the night in question because it was “a direct comment on defendant’s failure to take the witness stand”); (concluding that the prosecutor’s statement “No one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witness” constituted fundamental error); (reversing defendant
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See, e.g., Blackman, , 38 P.3d at 1210 (noting prosecutor “did not refer directly” to defendant’s failure to testify); , (fundamental error where prosecutor said “ ‘no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witnesses’ ”); , (prosecutor’s “direct comment on the defendant’s failur
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
Such “statements must be examined in context to determine whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive them to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.” Schrock, 149 Ariz. at 438 , 719 P.2d at 1054 ; , (prosecutor’s comment, “no one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary,” held to be fundamental error); , (prosecutor’s comment, “that [defendant] did not have to explain away, or that [defendant] di
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Austin v. Alfred 788 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Austin argues that disclosure of such statements is prohibited by Rule 1.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., 1
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
(comment, “No one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary ...” held to be fundamental error); , (“that she did not have to explain away, or that she did not explain away off of that witness stand” he
State v. Kerekes 673 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Kerekes 673 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Moya 667 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
He contends, however, that the argument constituted fundamental error, , where the prosecutor argued: No one, no one, no one got up on this stand and testified to you contrary to what was testified to you by the witnesses ....
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1977
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1977
as dispositive of this issue.
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
The appellant also contends under this his seventh argument on appeal that the submission to the prosecuting attorney of Dr. Tuchler’s , and rule 11.4(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977