Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rose, 589 P.2d 5.

122 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Max G. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Max G. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
But the authority for that proposition, our court’s and our supreme court’s do not hold that a juror’s previous victimization may never compel mandatory disqualification―only that it does not necessarily do so.
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The court need not strike a juror for cause “simply because [s]he was the victim of a crime similar to one with which the defendant is charged.” see also Colorado, 256 Ariz. at 102, ¶ 22.
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“In all these situations the bad acts shed some light on the crime charged and not merely on the defendant’s criminal propensity.”
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jesse Mesa v. Hon. granville/state 386 P.3d 387 Ariz. 2016
Jesse Mesa v. Hon. granville/state 386 P.3d 387 Ariz. 2016
¶ 1, 106 ¶ 8, –02 (2003)
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 “Intent is frequently shown by evidence of other criminal acts of the same character.” ().
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
icient basis to strike him for cause.” The trial court‟s decision is entitled to deference because the trial court has the opportunity to observe “the prospective juror‟s demeanor and the tenor of his answers,” and “is in a position to determine first hand whether a juror can render a fair and impartial verdict,”
Godoy v. Hantman 67 P.3d 700 Ariz. 2003
Godoy v. Hantman 67 P.3d 700 Ariz. 2003
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
The trial court, which is in the best “position to determine first hand whether a juror can render a fair and impartial verdict,”
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
Defendant’s -39 , -13 (1978), is therefore misplaced.
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Monares v. Wilcoxson 736 P.2d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Angle 720 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Angle 720 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985