Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Poland, 645 P.2d 784.

101 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
(concluding extrinsic evidence did not have prejudicial impact on minds of jurors and did not contribute to verdict).
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Adam Douglas Haywood 550 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
were similarly irrelevant.1 See § 13- 405(A)(2); (concluding admission of weapon “not connected with the crime” an abuse of discretion when irrelevant and potentially unfairly prejudicial).
State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Daniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A defendant is entitled “to a new trial if the jury receives extrinsic evidence and ‘it cannot be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict.’” Hall, 204 Ariz. at 447, ¶ 16 ().
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Under the ‘dual- 7 STATE v. CARDWELL Decision of the Court sovereignty’ doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute.” Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1964 (2019); (same rule).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
3 STATE v. CASTILLO Decision of the Court ¶8 “[A] juror who has agreed to the verdict in open court may not later impeach his own verdict,” absent “the types of jury misconduct enumerated in Rule 24.1(c)(3).”
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Facts may include hearsay statements, as well as “the collective knowledge of all of the law enforcement agents involved in the operation and may be viewed in light of an officer’s past experiences which enable him to interpret the actions of the surveilled person,” (citation omitted); Richardson
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“serious doubts” can be shown by “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports”).
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(stating that, after excising the false statement from a search warrant affidavit, the “remaining content must be sufficient to establish probable cause” (citation omitted)).
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-86, - 801 (1982) (holding the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s prior convictions were not mentioned when four jurors testified that those convictions had been discussed during juror deliberations)
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
The rule serves “to protect the process of frank and conscientious jury deliberations and the finality of jury verdicts.”
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
¶14 Chappell also argues that drowning alone is insufficient to support a finding of cruelty, (noting lack of evidence of victims’ suffering or a struggle), (noting, 7 after retrial, absence of evidence that “victims were conscious at the time of death”).
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
This court has adopted the Ninth Circuit’s standard of review for such issues, which entitles a defendant to a new trial if the jury receives extrinsic evidence and “it cannot be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the extrinsic evidence did not contribute to the verdict.” , (citing United States v. Vasquez, 597 F.2d 192, 193 (9th Cir.1979)).
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2352(c) (McNaughton rev.1961).
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
( , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
appeal after re *65 mand, , and , (1985), Kemp argues that the trial court erred in finding that the murder was committed in an especially cruel manner.
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
aff'd 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
According to one set of cases, the trial court should examine whether “there is a reasonable possibility of prejudice.”
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
See Roscoe, 145 Ariz. at 226 , 700 P.2d at 1326 ; , (“There was no evidence of suffering by the guards.
State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Aussie 854 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In other words, the act must be part of the corpus delicti of the crime____” , quoting Cox, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992