Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hallman, 668 P.2d 874.

117 citing documents.

State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
cited and relied on in Bailey, 160 Ariz. at 279 , 772 P.2d at 1132 .
State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
That term, in the context of felony murder, is defined in Arizona case law to mean “death resultfing] ‘from an action taken to facilitate the accomplishment of [the felony].’ ” , ( , ).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Prosecutorial misconduct does not require reversal “unless the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel.” , ( , ); accord Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
Anas, 131 Ariz. at 443 , 641 P.2d at 1287 .
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
940, 947 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); , (“Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, but only where the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel.”).
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rule 20(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Barrios 781 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
(“Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, but only where the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel”).
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36 , 628 P.2d at 583-84 ; , -08 (1980).
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jackson 760 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
See, , (expert may testify about character traits of a specific defendant and the possible acts flowing from such traits).
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986