Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bowie, 580 P.2d 1190.

51 citing documents.

State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, e.g., Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976)
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
see also State v. Bowie , , 341, , 1195 (1978) ("the state should scrupulously avoid any indication that the accused kept silent").
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
would be presented.” -40 (1978).
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 26 (App. 2013); (“Contradictions or a hazy recollection of events goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”) ().
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newell, 212 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 69, 132 P.3d at 847; (“Any possible prejudice from the opening statement was overcome by the court’s cautionary instructions that evidence did not come from the attorneys and that the verdict must be determined only by reference to the evidence[.]”).
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
– 40, –94 (1978) (ruling that prosecutor’s comments about anticipated testimony of four-year old child were not improper when prosecutor had good faith belief that child, whose competency had not been 4 STATE V. PEDROZA-PEREZ
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22 (2001) (considering the nature and extent of questions from the jury in determining whether certain information affected its decision); -40 (1978) (affirming denial of a motion for mistrial where the prosecutor briefly referred to unproven prior bad acts in the opening statement and never again during trial).
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 68, (“Any possible prejudice from the opening statement was overcome by the court‟s cautionary instructions that evidence did not come from the attorneys and that the verdict must be determined only by reference to the 11
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
See Doyle, 426 U.S. at 618-19
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
(“Any possible prejudice from the opening statement was overcome by the court’s cautionary instructions that evidence did not come from the attorneys and that the verdict must be determined only by reference to the evidence.”).
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona courts have only recognized prejudice in submitting to a jury separate charges where “each offense contains identical elements, where identical facts are used to support each charge, and where the only difference is in the name or number of the statute under which the charge is made.” , citing Hunt, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Keeley 871 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Pom" years ago, in another case involving failure to speak when arrested, we said, finding no reversible error: “In the future, the state should scrupulously avoid any indication that the accused kept silent after arrest.” State v. Borne, [ , ].
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
United States v. Schmitt, 794 F.2d 555, 559 (10th Cir.1986); Phelps v. Duckworth, 772 F.2d 1410, 1413 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Cummiskey, 728 F.2d 200, 204 (3d Cir.1984); Meeks v. Havener, 545 F.2d 9, 10 (6th Cir.1976); United States v. Wycoff, 545 F.2d 679 (9th Cir.1976); , , -18 , -17 (App.1977).
State v. Cartwright 746 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1987
State v. Cartwright 746 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1987
-40 , -94 (1978) (prosecutor’s good faith reference to evidence in opening statement not grounds for reversal where the trial testimony fails to support the statement, and the “evidence” is not referred to in the closing).
State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rules 22.-3, 22.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Reidhead 705 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
§ 12-2202 places a burden upon the trial court to examine all witnesses under the age of ten to determine their capability of receiving just impressions and relating them truthfully as witnesses, (citations omitted) The previous year, , Before permitting a young child to testify, the trial judge must ascertain that the child is capable “of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are to testify, [and] of relating them truly.” (citing the statute) ...
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
(“In this case, the error, if any, in the prosecutor’s comments, was invited by the defense counsel’s closing argument.
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. Sorrell 645 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Sorrell 645 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Anderson, supra
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981