Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Melendez, 588 P.2d 294.

61 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
“Nor must a trial court allow a defendant to ask questions ‘designed to condition the jurors to damaging evidence expected to be presented at trial and to commit them to certain positions prior to receiving the evidence.’” ¶ 36 (2018) ().
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State v. Melendez , , 3, , 296 (1978).
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, e.g., Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317-18 (1974) (concluding trial court erroneously excluded evidence that a key witness was on probation and therefore particularly “vulnerable” to “undue pressure” from the state); -4 (1978) (concluding trial court erroneously precluded defense from attacking the credibility of a key witness by showing that through “his testimony he was escaping the possibility of a penalty of death or life imprisonment”); -01 (1960) (concluding trial court erroneously p
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
A defendant does not have the right to “commit [prospective jurors] to certain positions prior to receiving the evidence.” cf. State v. Smith, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 42, (holding that a trial court need not permit a defendant to question jurors about their assessment of specific aggravating factors).
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
( , ); State v. (Jessie) Lopez
State v. Gertz 918 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Gertz 918 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, -4 , -97 (1978); , -70 (1965).
State v. Lara 880 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Lara 880 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
Although “assault and battery are always included in an unlawful homicide, they are not degrees of such offense requiring the court where death results to instruct that the defendant may be found guilty thereof.” , (-08 , ); , (holding in first degree murder case that “[wjhere the victim of an assault dies as a result of that assault, the trial court is not required to instruct on the lesser included offense of aggravated assault.”).
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lujan 664 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
State v. Lopez 657 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Lopez 657 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
We have previously held that “[a] defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of his case reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
The purpose behind the provisions of Rule 18.5 is to give the trial court authority to limit the scope of examination to those questions reasonably designed to expose possible prejudice on the part of the jurors.”
State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Rule 18.5(e), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
Appellant’s other motions are governed by the same standard; for abuse of discretion with resulting prejudice, see State v. Schmid, supra (change of venue); , (change of venue); , (scope of voir dire); , (extent of voir dire); Rule 18.5, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980