Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 710 P.2d 1050.

47 citing documents.

State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The crucial question is “whether the defendant was prejudiced by what the jury saw, not the mere fact that it was seen.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“The question is whether the defendant was prejudiced by what the jury saw, not the mere fact that it was seen.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶10 “The question is whether the defendant was prejudiced by what the jury saw, not the mere fact that it was seen.”
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
the other hand, “the inadvertent exposure of a handcuffed or shackled defendant to members of the jury outside the courtroom is not inherently prejudicial, and a defendant is not entitled to a new trial absent a showing of actual prejudice.” (noting that when “several jurors inadvertently saw the defendant in custody while on the way to the courtroom” the relevant question was “whether the defendant was prejudiced by what the jury saw”); State v. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 272 ¶¶ 9-12
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
P. 11.3; , (using “reasonable grounds” test to decide whether hearing may help determine defendant’s competence to stand trial); , (same); Martin, 102 Ariz. at 146 , 426 P.2d at 643 (using “reasonable grounds” test to decide whether hea
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990)
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Conde 846 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Conde 846 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
the “grave risk” aggravating circumstance does not apply in cases in which “the other person endangered was a victim or intended victim of the criminal conduct.” Even if this victim’s fetus was “another person” under § 13-703(F)(3), it was also an intended target of defendant’s crime
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Rossi (Rossi I)
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
See, , (findings of defendant’s diminished capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, lack of prior convictions, and non-aggressive nature outweighed finding that the killing was done for pecuniary gain); , (death penalty improper where aggravating circumstances erroneously found); , (youthfulness of defendant was substantial mitigating factor); , , cert.
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
(defendant did not create grave risk of danger to others or commit murder in a cruel, heinous or depraved manner and no other aggravating circumstances were present); , (insufficient evidence that defendant intended to kill victim who was beate
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
State v. McMurtrey 726 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1986
796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980); or intended victims, , , cert.
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
(defendant did not create grave risk of danger to others or commit murder in cruel, heinous, or depraved manner, and no aggravating circumstances); , , (substantial mental impairment due to dr
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
the same Dr. Garcia-Bunuel as in the instant case, was asked to determine whether a full Rule 11 examination was necessary.