Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunter, 664 P.2d 195.

115 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
While neither party is required to prove motive in the first instance, whether motive exists “is a circumstance that may be considered” by the jury, and here, the jury was so instructed.
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“[E]ither fleeing the scene as upon open pursuit or concealment is sufficient to support a flight instruction.”); (Nev.
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(noting that, although motive is relevant, it is not an element of murder).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-1704.A; (explaining when motive is not an element of the charged crime, it can be relevant, but not essential for conviction).
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Parker, 231 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 44.
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Interval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hunter , , 50, , 200 (1983) (instruction required after destruction of evidence) (citing Willits ); see also State v. Perez , , 464, , 1219 (1984) (instruction required where state fails to preserve "obviously material, and reasonably accessible" evidence and prejudice shown).
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
[which] is considered flight only if the manner of leaving suggests consciousness of guilt.” – 49 (1983) (citations omitted).
State v. Mueller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mueller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
(discussing that motive is not an element of murder but that motive or lack of motive is a circumstance that may be considered in determining guilt or innocence).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
(discussing that motive is not an element of murder but that motive or lack of motive is a circumstance that may be considered in determining guilt or innocence).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The focus is on the manner of leaving the scene because flight “is viewed as an admission by conduct” when it “manifests a consciousness of guilt.”
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding motive is relevant in murder prosecution even though not element of offense); (“[P]roof of motive is always relevant.”).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–70 ¶¶ 9, 11 & n.1, –60 & n.1 (App. 1999) disapproved of by State v. Miranda, 3 STATE v. JONES Decision of the Court P.3d 506 (2001) ( ).
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See State 8 v. Hunter, (stating “the fact that the defendant had some motive, good or bad, for committing the crime is one of the circumstances which, together with other circumstances, may lead the fact-finder to conclude that he did in fact commit the crime”) (quoting W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Crimina
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
(“To be entitled to a Willits instruction, .
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-49, -99 (1983) (jury can consider flight as consciousness of guilt).
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Whether a recording is sufficiently audible to be admitted into evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-49, -99 (1983) (jury may consider flight as consciousness of guilt).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
(defendant’s alternative explanation for flight does not make instruction improper).