DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McVay, 622 P.2d 9.

85 citing documents.

  • State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (using prior consistent statements to bolster a witness’s credibility may be prejudicial when that witness’s testimony is the only evidence for elements of an offense, or when the credibility of that witness may be “the factor which removed a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors”).
  • State v. Toney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Toney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.’”) ().
  • State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    (“[E]rroneously admitted evidence is harmless in a criminal case only when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict.”); (improper rehabilitation of witness with hearsay evidence not harmless error); (erroneous admission of prejudicial hearsay evidence not harmless).
  • State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
    For such a conclusion to stand, we would have to find “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
    The question is whether, “without this evidence, the appellate court can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have found the defendant guilty.”
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Johnson 842 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.’ ”
  • State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Wilhite 772 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Wilhite 772 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    : The question is not whether, absent the error, there were sufficient facts from which the jury could find the defendant guilty, the question is whether, without this evidence, the appellate court can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have found the defendant guilty.
  • State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
    Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); , (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); , (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error).
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
    (unless there is a reasonable possibility that improperly admitted evidence contributed to conviction, reversal is not required).
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” , (
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1985
    824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 711 (1967)
  • State v. White 697 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. White 697 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 695 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 695 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1985
    the Court of Appeals held that it was error not to reinstruct the jury on the State’s burden of proof but that the matter was not reversible error.
  • State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983