Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wiley, 698 P.2d 1244.

71 citing documents.

State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”); (“Where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a conviction, we will reverse a trial court’s denial of a Rule 20 motion [for judgment of acquittal].”) ().
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
overruled on other grounds by State ex rel.
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
overruled on other grounds, State ex rel.
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
In Arizona, “[disqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative.” , ( , ); , (excusing venire person who could not convict due to religious opposition to the death penalty does not violate state consti
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
es of the stop had concluded,” and at that point, he was unlawfully detained because the officer “had nothing other than a hunch to continue to question [him].” A police officer may not detain a person for, investigative purposes unless the officer has a “reasonable, articula-ble suspicion that a particular person ha[s] committed, [i]s committing, or [i]s about to commit a crime.” , (emphasis omitted), overruled on other grounds, , see also State v. Dickey, 152 N.J.
State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
overruled on other grounds, State v. Superior Court (Gardner), , cert.
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
In State v. Wiley, this court instructed that a police officer may detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that a particular person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.” , overruled on other grounds
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
We have construed the Wainwright standard such that “[disqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative.” Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 277 , 921 P.2d at 680 ( , , ).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
overruled on other grounds
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
(“In order to prevent juror confusion, the trial court must instruct the jury to consider the evidence against each defendant separately.”), overruled on other grounds, , cert.
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), -35 , -54 (1985), overruled on other grounds
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
“[I]n cases where the crimes of the two defendants are so intertwined that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate proof of one defendant’s crimes from that of the co-defendant’s, it would be a waste of resources to require individual trials.” State v. Wiley, 144 Ariz. *26 525, 532, overruled on other grounds by State ex rel.
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
You must consider the evidence and the charges against each defendant separately.” Lawson, 144 Ariz. at 556 , 698 P.2d at 1275 ; -33 , -52 (1985).
State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
overruled on other grounds
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 1329 ; Winegar, 147 Ariz. at 447 n. 5, 711 P.2d at 586 n. 5; , overruled on other grounds
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
“[A] trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when it is adequately covered by other instructions.”
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
(citations omitted); -10 , -79 (1991); -35 , -54 (1985), overruled on other grounds
Daniel v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 842 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Daniel v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 842 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Garcia-Garcia 821 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Garcia-Garcia 821 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
(reasonable suspicion of criminality, plus hunting knife in car, was enough to trigger search of vehicle).
State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
§ 13-203(A)(1); , W. LaFave & A. Scott, Jr., Handbook on Criminal Law 249 (1979).
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
overruled on other grounds, , cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
State v. Smith 774 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1989
overruled on other grounds, , , for his assertion that a felony murder charge requires a proximate cause instruction.
State v. SUPERIOR CT IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 760 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1988
State v. SUPERIOR CT IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 760 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1988
this court expressly cited and followed Swain to support our refusal to “[require] an examination of the prosecutor’s reasons for the exercise of his challenges in any given case.” Wiley, 144 Ariz. at 535 , 698 P.2d at 1254 .
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988