Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. LaGrand, 734 P.2d 563.

152 citing documents.

State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
A witness’ credibility “goes to the weight of the statements, not their admissibility,” and issues of credibility fall to the jury
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Preston Alton Strong 555 P.3d 537 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Preston Alton Strong 555 P.3d 537 Ariz. 2024
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“[N]o lesser included offense to felony murder exists because the mens rea necessary to satisfy the premeditation element of first degree murder is supplied by the specific intent required for the felony.”).
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
804(a)(1); (holding the defendant “was ‘unavailable’ within the meaning of the Rules” when he “stated throughout pretrial proceedings that he would not take the stand” and “[d]espite the absence of a formal assertion of his Fifth Amendment right”).
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
(“[W]e have already explained at length why Beck is inapposite to Arizona law.”).
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
That being said, when a defendant demonstrates that trial publicity “was so extensive or outrageous that it permeated the proceedings or created a ‘carnival-like atmosphere,’” we “presume prejudice without a particularized examination of the publicity’s effect on the jury.” ( ¶ 25 (2001)).
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶25 “A declarant is considered unavailable if he asserts his privilege against self-incrimination.”
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 50, 745 P.2d at 108 ( ).
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
ashing store had “failed before the police officer arrived,” and he “received no money and was not going to receive any money from the clerk.” But “an absence of actual receipt of money or valuables [does not] negate[] a finding of expectation of pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance.” -25, 35-36, -67, 577- 78 (1987).
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 36
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
At most, Kiles’ brief and the arguments presented below point to regular press coverage over ‘effect of publicity on a juror’s objectivity’”) ( ).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
See State v. LaGrand (LaGrand II)
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
-37, -79 (1987) (finding gratuitous violence when a bound and gagged man was stabbed twenty-four times).
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
cert denied, 484 U.S. 872 [ 108 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
-37 , -78 (1987) (focusing on the cause or motivation of the murder).
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
The critical inquiry is the “effect of publicity on a juror’s objectivity.”
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , (Sixth Amendment right to present evidence limited to relevant evidence); , (proper exclusion of hearsay evidence does not violate due process rights).
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“When the defendant comes to rob, the defendant expects pecuniary gain and tMs desire infects all other conduct of the defendant.”
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“When the defendant comes to rob, the defendant expects pecuniary gain and this desire infects all other conduct of the defendant.”
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. LaGrand (Walter)
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001