Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bracy, 703 P.2d 464.

103 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“When previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation.”); (same).
State v. Gee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Gee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See State v. Bracy, 3 STATE v. GEE Decision of the Court (suppressed evidence must also be “material”).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“When previously undisclosed exculpatory information is revealed at the trial and is presented to the jury, there is no Brady violation.”); (finding failure to disclose “merely cumulative” evidence did not require reversal).
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
ez, ¶ 48 (2002) (finding identification made within two days of the crime weighed in favor of reliability), superseded on other grounds, –55 (1987) (concluding there was no error in admitting identification where the “time between the crime and the identification was but a few hours”); –32 (1985) (finding an identification made “fifty-three days after the crime” was not unreliable, reasoning “[w]hether the length of time between the crime and the pretrial identification is too long depends upon
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(finding the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct both by submitting to an interview and by “pos[ing] for photos to accompany the article”).
State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(in determining whether a limitation on cross-examination requires reversal, we consider whether the “jury is otherwise in possession of sufficient information to assess the bias and motives of the witness”) (citation omitted).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Superior Court (Corcoran)
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
Although a prosecutor’s opening statement should not refer to inadmissible evidence, -27, -71 (1985), nothing indicates that the prosecutor here deliberately attempted to prejudice the jury.
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
5 ¶10 “The criminal defendant’s due process rights include the right to a fair identification procedure.”
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“Exhibits which have the tendency to cause prejudice may often be admissible despite offers to stipulate or the absence of controverting or contradicting evidence.”); (despite defendant’s offer to stipulate, trial court did not err in admitting inflammatory photographs as evidence on disputed issue).
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶41 ‘Whether a defendant will be shackled is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” , ( , ).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
The court reasoned that “we cannot compel the state ‘to try its case in a sterile setting.’” , (-90 , -17 (1983)); see also Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 171 , 800 P.2d at 1279 (“In prosecuting [a murder], the state must be allowed some latitude to show what actually occurred.”).
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
“Whether a defendant will be shackled is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
However, we have also previously held that “though the trial court must always instruct the jury that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no requirement that a trial court define reasonable doubt for the jury.” , cert.
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
“[T]hough the trial court must always instruct that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no requirement that a trial court define reasonable doubt for the jury.” , cert.
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
and how the murders were committed.” , cert.
State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993