Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clabourne, 690 P.2d 54.

142 citing documents.

State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
3 STATE v. VALENZUELA ARELLA Decision of the Court ¶10 "A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when 'no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.'" (); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Lawrence Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lawrence Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Moreover, Lawrence did not object to this error below, and “a party’s failure to make a timely objection to a sentencing procedure waives that point for appeal.”
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Gruesome photographs may be admitted to .
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
(finding no bias, and thus no error, where, though a juror had acquaintances with members of law enforcement, all jurors stated they would view the evidence fairly).
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when ‘no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.’” ()); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
or has mental disabilities is whether these problems render him unable to understand the meaning of his statements.”
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 18, (holding a party moving to strike an entire jury panel “must affirmatively demonstrate that a fair and impartial jury was not secured or that some material violation occurred”).
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See, (preparation of new pre-sentence report); (postponement of sentencing for competency examination); (severance, continuance, or mistrial); see also State v. Gipson
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
accord United States v. Turner, 157 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that, although defendant was intoxicated at the time of his confession and exhibited signs of mental illness, the defendant “understood his rights and knowingly waived them”).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
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
“A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when ‘no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.’” , , (alteration in Nunez).
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(jury panel not tainted by one panel member blurting out “‘the entire defense was a lot of baloney’” when not clear any jurors heard remark, jurors interviewed separately about insanity defense, and juror who made statement excused); -07
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
denied, 127 S. Ct. 559 (2006); (same).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
at 348 , at 68 (1984) (holding there was no mitigation where defendant, but not accomplices, did actual killing, which involved strangling and stabbing).
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
(disparity justified by fact that defendant did the killing); , (same).
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
“In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine that the denial or restriction *30 of investigative funds substantially prejudiced the defendant.”