DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Charo, 754 P.2d 288.

32 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
    ¶28 But erroneously admitted evidence is less likely to be harmless if it is admitted without a limiting instruction, see Fulminante, if it is presented repeatedly, see Williams, 133 Ariz. at 227, if it is argued in closing, if it 15 STATE v. COPELAND Opinion of the Court identifies the defendant as the perpetrator, (reasoning erroneously admitted hearsay was harmless, in part beca
  • State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Libert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Grand jury findings of probable cause are not reviewable on appeal because “the issue of probable cause is a closed question after the 2 STATE v. LIBERT Decision of the Court jury determines a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (“[A]fter a full scale trial in which a jury determines guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the question [of whether probable cause exists] is closed.”); –42 (App. 1983) (observing that “once a trial jury has found guilt beyond a
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”); (summarily rejecting argument that trial court erred in precluding evidence of drugs in victim’s system); (affirming a trial court’s finding that “absent any showing how the drug had affected the victim,” evidence of meth
  • State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -36, ¶¶ 15- 17, -78 (2005) (holding failure to object to alleged defects in indictment before trial waived any objection); (holding defendant invited any error in denial of motion to remand where motion denied as moot at defendant’s request).
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    (use of evidence in closing arguments belied claim that it was unimportant).
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
    5 Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, , , are consistent with this general rule.
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
    (“the issue of probable cause is a closed question after the jury determines a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”).
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (testimony offered to prove truth of victim’s belief she “feared” defendant not admissible under state-of-mind exception).
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Winters 771 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Winters 771 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989