Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 673 P.2d 17.

56 citing documents.

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
State v. (Robert D.) Smith
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20 , , (“‘Opposing counsel must timely object to any erroneous or improper statements made during closing argument or waive his right to the objection, except for fundamental error.’ ”), , , (defendant forfeited argument by first raising it in motion for new trial).'
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
This court has previously noted that the trustworthiness of a defendant’s self-serving out-of-court statement was “highly suspect.” State v. Smith (Robert)
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, , cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1074 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
“Opposing counsel must timely object to any erroneous or improper statements made during closing argument or waive his right to the objection, except for fundamental error.” , cert.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
See State v. Smith (Robert), , cert.
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
However, the court ruled that defendant’s self-serving statements — that he felt threatened by the gestures of the victim and Townley — were in *566 , , cert.
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
While it could be argued that a disparity in sentence of the sort that occurred in this case should preclude the imposition of the death penalty as a matter of law, , (Feldman, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Lewis 759 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Lewis 759 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1988
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
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. (Robert Douglas) Smith, , cert.
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Johnson v. University Hospital 712 P.2d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
267 , 83 L.Ed.2d 203 (1984) (complete immunity given to an equally culpable co-defendant is “appalling” because the other codefendants had already confessed); , -25 (1983), cert.
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985