Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cruz, 672 P.2d 470.

114 citing documents.

State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–24 (1984) (Defense counsel admitted that he failed to interview between 20 and 30 witnesses.); (A substitute counsel at sentencing stated he was unfamiliar with the case and had nothing to say on the defendant’s behalf.); –50 (1983) (Trial counsel refused to actively participate in the trial after his motion to disqualify the judge was refused.).
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
STATE v. ELIA Decision of the Court severance “if necessary to promote a fair determination of any defendant’s guilt or innocence of any offense,” Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.4(a), including where “the court detects the presence or absence of unusual features of the crime or case that might prejudice the defendant,”
John K. v. Dcs, C.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
John K. v. Dcs, C.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Even in a criminal case tried to a jury, as opposed to a juvenile case tried to the court, a party challenging a denial of severance “must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” (citation omitted).
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining a “conspiracy may continue after the commission of the substantive offense” when the “object of the conspiracy includes more than the commission of a substantive offense”); (“A conspiracy generally ends once its criminal objective is atta
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“In deciding whether to grant a severance the court must balance the possible prejudice to the defendant against interests of judicial economy.” (citations omitted).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 Moreover, Coleman cannot show “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect,” (), where, as here, “the trial court instructed the jury to consider each count separately and explained that the State bore the burden to ‘prove each element of each charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt,’” Miller, 234 Ariz. at 38, ¶ 18 (quoting Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 75, ¶ 48); accord Goudeau, 239 Ariz. a
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Murray, 184 Ariz. at 25 (Defendant "must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.") ().
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
“When a defendant challenges a denial of severance on appeal, he ‘must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.’” (quoting State v. (Robert C.) Cruz, ); see also Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶¶ 19–20, 115 P.3d at 607 20 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court (defendant must establish prejudice to prevail on fundamental error review).
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the denial of a severance motion for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse based on this issue only if the defendant shows “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” ().
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
We review for an abuse of discretion, and reverse only if the defendant can show “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” ( ).
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that ordering a severance and mistrial as to one co-defendant is an appropriate remedy for a Bruton violation).
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The burden rests on the defendant to demonstrate that the court’s failure to sever caused “‘compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.’” Id.
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(finding reversible error in trial court’s admission of inflammatory evidence pursuant to Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid.); , (reversing convictions based on trial court’s failure to grant a severance under state standards); ¶¶ 7-8, 19-20 , 811 (App.2008) (vacating conviction based on juror coercion and erroneous denial of motion for mistrial under
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
‘When a defendant challenges a denial of severance on appeal, he ‘must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.’ ” , ( , ).