Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sustaita, 583 P.2d 239.

46 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(“We have stated that ‘.
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
§ 13-1302] differ from those required to prove a violation of subsection A.3, the original and supervening indictments do not allege the same charge.”); (“We have stated that ‘[a]n offense which requires different evidence or elements than the principal charge is a separate offense .
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Counsel for both sides have “considerable latitude” in closing arguments and a closing remark is unduly prejudicial only when it “calls to the attention of the jurors matters which they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict.” -94, -50 (1979)
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
See, , , (stating that motions made “just before trial” challenging constitutionality of statute were untimely under Rule 16.1(b)).
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
vacated on other grounds, , Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
Rule 607, Ariz.R.Evid., 17A A.R.S.
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
Otherwise, a defendant may be convicted by evidence which was not intended to be introduced against him and which he, therefore, did not have the opportunity to refute through cross-examination, , — a result abhorrent to the sixth amendment.
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
( , ), we said "`[t]he general rule is that the state may ask the defendant, when he is a witness, whether he was previously convicted of a felony....'" In the instant case, the prosecutor wanted to impeach appellant by
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
Even under the higher standard of scrutiny applied in cases where the question of a prosecutor’s allegedly improper comment has been properly preserved for appeal, we would be unable to say this comment “probably influenced the jury’s verdict.” , quoting State v. Sus *84 taita
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
See, e. g., , State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 606 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 606 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Contreras 595 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Contreras 595 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
resolves the burden of proof argument against appellant.
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Puryear 590 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979