Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Alvarez, 701 P.2d 1178.

57 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
(“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”).
State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
That said, counsel is given “wide latitude” in offering closing argument, –37 (1970), impeaching witnesses on cross-examination, and presenting “fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense,”
State of Arizona v. Charlie Conley Jr. 523 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Charlie Conley Jr. 523 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”).
State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Criticized State v. Randles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(witness’ level of certainty favored admission because the witness responded immediately and without hesitation).
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(prosecutorial comments are proper when they are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 510; (“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”).
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
(determining that level of certainty favored admission where the witness responded “immediately and without hesitation”); State v. (Joe) Williams, (stating that identification was reliable in part because the witness testified that “she was sure” about the identification); State v.
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cienfuegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[W]here a victim rivets her attention upon her attacker, the reliability of her subsequent identification of him is enhanced.”).
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
“[I]f the prosecutor’s remarks were ‘invited,’ and did no more than respond substantially in order to ‘right the scale,’ such comments would not warrant reversing a conviction.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1985); (“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.”).
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(explaining that comments by the prosecution refuting a defendant’s theory are proper because they “are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense”).
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Prosecutorial comments which are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense are proper.” (citation omitted).
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Such comments by the prosecution which refute a defendant’s theory are proper because they “are a fair rebuttal to areas opened by the defense.” (-83 (App. 1981)).
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when witness rivets her attention upon a person, reliability of a subsequent identification of that person is enhanced).
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Our supreme 2 -08, -16 (App. 1991), the State argues that the prosecutor’s comments referencing Ramos’s failure to take “the stand” and testify were “fair rebuttal” to Ramo
State v. Osorio 931 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Osorio 931 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
“[T]he fact that a defendant’s photograph was the only one to appear twice [in a photographic lineup is] not necessarily fatal.”
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rather the law only requires that they depict individuals who basically resemble one another such that the suspect’s photograph does not stand out.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
ied Walden, they were told that he was in custody; and (4) after identifying Walden, Kristina was shown a newspaper, clipping indicating that Walden had been arrested not only for her assault, but also for Vicki’s and Miguela’s. “[T]he law only requires that [line-' ups] depict individuals who basically resemble one another such that the suspect’s photograph does not stand out.”
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
111—12, -76 (1978) (defendant only person in line-up without facial hair); -73 , -81 (1985) (line-up not impermissibly suggestive where only the defendant had facial moles like those described by the victim and where defendant was only one of two Hispanics shown).
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
Rather, the law only requires that they depict individuals who basically resemble one another such that the suspect’s photograph does not stand out.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986