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. Castaneda, 724 P.2d 1.

106 citing documents.

  • Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
  • Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    -64 , -42 (App.1981); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
    507, 512 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); , , (1986).
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Photographic evidence may have several permissible purposes, including “to corroborate state witnesses, to illustrate and explain testimony, and to corroborate the state’s theory of how and why the homicide was committed.”
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    While it is true that Rule 404(b) evidence may be relevant and admissible for purposes such as appellant has asserted, , , by the plain language of that rule, other acts evidence is not admissible if offered solely to prove that a person acted in conformity with a character trait.
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
    See, -92 , -11 (1986) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photos of murder victim).
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
    Duress is defined as “any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily or other harm, or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another, and actually inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will.”
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
    Duress is defined as “any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily or other harm, or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another, and actually inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will.” , (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 452 (5th ed. 1979)).
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that photographs of stab wounds in victim’s chest and victim’s nude *306 body smeared with blood were properly admitted); , (holding that photograph of victim’s body and close-up photograph of victim’s torso and decompos
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
    For this mitigating circumstance to apply, “one person must coerce or induce another person to do something against his will.” State v. Castañeda
  • State v. Ayala 873 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Ayala 873 P.2d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
    “[W]hether the murder involved cruelty is a question that focuses on the victim and his feelings before he died.”
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
    We have defined duress as “any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily or other harm, or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another, and actually inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will.”
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    “We have defined duress as ‘any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily or other harm, or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another, and actually inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will.’ ” Wallace, 151 Ariz. at 369 , 728 P.2d at 239 , , quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 452 (5th ed. 1979).
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
    Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 254 , 778 P.2d at 619
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
    Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 255 , 778 P.2d at 620
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Greene 784 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Greene 784 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    See, , (admission of coerced confession harmless error).
  • State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988