Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sullivan, 635 P.2d 501.
- State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Cruz 672 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. Smith
673 P.2d 17
Ariz. 1983
Even under the higher standard of scrutiny applied in cases where the question of a prosecutor’s allegedly improper comment has been properly preserved for appeal, we would be unable to say this comment “probably influenced the jury’s verdict.” , quoting State v. Sus *84 taita
- State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983