Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Axley, 646 P.2d 268.

124 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Nolan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
The cases cited by Nolan for this proposition rely directly or indirectly on Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980).5 See Fisher, 141 Ariz. at 243
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ahrens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(a defendant can only compel immunity for a witness who can present testimony that is “clearly exculpatory and essential” to the defendant’s case).
State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Jones 559 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶21 No error occurs when a trial court omits a particular instruction if the instructions given “fairly represent[] the applicable law.”
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
v. Fisher, ( ¶ 12 (2015)) (concluding the defendant failed to present evidence that a witness “if immunized, would offer evidence that was clearly exculpatory and essential to the defense’s case” sufficient to “trigger” a due process imperative to immunize the witness); (concluding no basis to compel immunity for a defense witness absent evidence that the witness’s testimony was both “clearly exculpatory and essential”)
State v. Cepeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cepeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[A]lthough all the legal theories represented in defendant’s requested instructions were not given to the jury, the jury instructions actually given fairly represented the applicable law.”).
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Leon contends that a trial court must grant immunity when a prospective witness will present “clearly exculpatory evidence” and the failure to do so will prevent the defendant from presenting “a complete defense.” ¶17 As noted by the State, Leon did not raise this claim in the trial court, and we t
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“‘[I]nstructions must be predicated on some theory of the case which may be found in the evidence, and, when not so predicated, they should not be given, as their tendency would be to mislead the jury.’”) ( ).
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(not error to refuse specifically requested instruction when instructions given to jury adequately set forth applicable law).
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Arizona, a defendant generally is entitled to a jury instruction “on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” -38, -82 (App. 1983) (even if court denies motion to suppress statements on voluntariness grounds, defendant entitled to voluntariness instruction “if t
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
¶32 We have also rejected the argument that not specifying the victim or property in an armed robbery count requires reversal, see id., concluding that proper jury instructions and verdict forms may cure an allegedly defective charging document, see State v. Axley, 132 Ariz. 383, 392
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, -8, 27 , -75, 494 (1996) (affirming felony murder convictions of defendant who waited across the highway in a vehicle while another person robbed the victims at gunpoint and then killed them); 394 , 279 (1982) (affirming felony murder conviction of defendant on evidence that defendant waited in the getaway car while his codefendant shot and killed attendant at laundromat in course of attempted robbery).
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Gary Edward Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 13 Reyna’s , is also misplaced.
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 , 385 n. 1, 388, , 270 n. 1, 273 (1982), the defendant asserted that the prosecutor’s unwillingness to grant immunity to the co-defendant (who had pled guilty) resulted in the inability to secure the testimony of this essential defense witness.
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-90 , -75 (1982) (Terry stop supported in part by fact that vehicle matched broadcast description).
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993