Cited by

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

114 citing documents.

State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
Defendant Lee contends a severance was required once it became apparent that he and Harrison were offering “antagonistic defenses.” , (holding that the trial judge must sever when defenses are so antagonistic as to be mutually exclusive).
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
etion in refusing to sever appellant’s trial from Stern’s. Even assuming arguendo that the defenses presented by appellant and Stem were not so antagonistic as to be mutually exclusive, -94 , -04 (1984), severance may be *228 warranted where “a defendant may be prejudiced by the actual conduct of his or her co-defendant’s defense.”
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Cruz 857 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1993
State v. Cruz 857 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b)
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
Distinguished State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
we concluded that a co-defendant’s testimony was so prejudicial that a mistrial was necessary.
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
While it is true that the conspiracy was ongoing until the last contemplated act was concluded, , it is also true that this conspiracy was a completed offense at many points earlier than the final arrest.
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Sparks 708 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sparks 708 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1985
2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984); -47, -76 (1983).
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
Rule 404(b), Ariz.R.Evid., 17A A.R.S.
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
s, or of any or all defendants, or both, is necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of any defendant of any offense, the court may on its own initiative, and shall on motion of a party, order such severance.” Where the trial court does not grant a severance, a defendant must show “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.”
State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
(focusing on this factor in determining whether defendant was prejudiced by co-defendant’s trial conduct).
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
-24 , -76 (1984) (defense counsel admitted that he failed to interview from 20 to 30 witnesses); , (substitute counsel at sentencing, after stating he was unfamiliar with the case, had nothing to say on defendant’s behalf); -50 , -78 (1983) (counsel refused to actively participate in *458 trial after his motion to disqualify the judge was refused); State v. Carriger, supra, , (counsel refused to present any evidence or otherwise participate at sentencing); State v. Myles, 389 So.2d 12, 30 (
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985