Cited by

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

142 citing documents.

State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
There is no abuse of discretion unless the court’s actions “substantially prejudiced the defendant.”
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
funds substantially prejudiced the defendant.”
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
(instruction on lesser included offenses inappropriate in absence of evidence supporting the lesser offense).
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
“In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine that the denial or restriction of investigative funds substantially prejudiced the defendant.” , see also, , cert.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
at 1905 ; , (comment by potential juror that “the entire defense was a lot of baloney” did not impermissibly contaminate the panel).
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Elmore 851 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Elmore 851 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Gatlin 831 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Gatlin 831 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In support of its position
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
See, e.g., Walton, 159 Ariz. at 589 , 769 P.2d at 1035 (age 20 not a mitigating factor); Gerlaugh, 144 Ariz. at 460-61 , 698 P.2d at 705-06 (age 19 *507 not a mitigating factor); , (age 20 not a mitigating factor); , (age 20 not a mitigating factor).
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
“In capital cases, the trial judge must instruct” the jury on all “those lesser included offenses that the evidence will support.” , see also Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when “no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.” , Rule 20, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
3298 , 111 L.Ed.2d 806 (1990)
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
49 , 107 L.Ed.2d 18 (1989) (age 20 not a mitigating factor); , (age 19 not a mitigating factor); , (age 20 not a mitigating factor); State v. Gillies (Gillies I), , (age 20 not a mitigating factor).
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fenton, 86 Ariz. Ill, 119, cert.