Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cannon, 713 P.2d 273.

65 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Evidentiary Rule 404 only applies if the evidence is introduced “to show that the alleged crime or bad act actually occurred.”
State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
The Prosecutor’s Statements About Evidence ¶32 “[I]t is not proper to misstate evidence,” and “[c]ounsel’s questioning and argument .
State v. Manseau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Further, any challenge to a jury instruction is “evaluated in light of all of the instructions given.” (citation omitted); see also Dann, 220 Ariz. at 363 ¶ 51 (citing cases).
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
thought might have occurred with Garcia’s other children, the State offered no other evidence or argument establishing any such sexual conduct with the other children, and the record does not reflect that the State attempted to use the evidence to establish that the charged offenses occurred, or to establish that Garcia had a propensity to commit the charged offenses.
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Generally, we review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 30 (2006), but “we cannot require trial judges sua sponte to rule on issues not raised before them.”
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶98 It is improper for a prosecutor to misstate evidence, and, “if done intentionally, would be a serious breach of the prosecutor’s duty.”
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“[An appellate court] can disregard substantive issues raised for the first time in the reply brief.”); n.2, n.2 (App. 2005) (issues first raised in reply brief generally waived); (Ap
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
¶8 We do not “require trial judges sua sponte to rule on issues not raised before them,” and it is generally the parties’ responsibility to seek discretionary orders.
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
- 19 - admissible for the purpose of rebutting the impression which he attempted to create: that he cooperated fully with the law enforcement authorities”); -77, -78 (1985) (holding that if defendant testified that his police statement was coerced, prosecution could play entire interrogation tape to show lack of coercion, even though it would disclose admissions to numerous uncharged robberies).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
And, if the appellant does so, “[a]n appellate court can ‘disregard [the new] substantive issues raised.’” Id.
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio 45 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
An appellate court can “disregard substantive issues raised for the first time in the reply brief.”
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
at 126, 817 P.2d at 493 ( , ).
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
our supreme court stated that “we cannot require trial judges sua sponte to rule on issues not raised before them.” The trial court, therefore, did not err by failing to exclude the prior incident sua sponte.
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
Even if the conviction is admissible under Rule 404(b), it “may still be excluded under Rule 403 if the trial judge finds its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice____” , -76 , -77 (1985).
State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
State v. Diaz 813 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1991
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989