DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rankovich, 765 P.2d 518.

56 citing documents.

  • State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Skeldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (finding motions for new trial are disfavored and should be granted with great caution).
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶6 “Motions for new trial are disfavored and should be granted with great caution.”
  • State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶12 Stuart argues, however, P.2d 518 (1988) controls our analysis.
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶29 Regarding the motion for new trial, “[m]otions for new trial are disfavored and should be granted with great caution.”
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 32, (stating that trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); (stating that denial of motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  • State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    Such motions “‘are disfavored and should be granted with great caution.’”
  • State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    122 n. 3, , 524 n. 3 (1988) (failure to raise or argue claim in opening brief “constitutes abandonment and waiver of that issue”); , (defendant’s objection below that “he would not be able to cross-examine” unavailable witness whose hea
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    (defining premeditation as a “length of time permitting reflection”); , (same); , (same); , (same); , (same), , (“Premeditation is established by evidence of a plan to murder form
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    In deciding whether the first degree murder conviction must be reversed, we apply the principle that, “In Arizona, error is not reversible if substantial evidence in the record supports the verdict and it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute significantly to the verdict.”
  • State v. Ketchum 956 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Ketchum 956 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
    “Motions for new trial are disfavored and should be granted with great caution.”
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    at 366 , 636 P.2d at 144
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
    dant acted with the culpable mental *12 state of “intentionally or with the intent to.” 2 And, previous decisions by this court illustrate that the law in Arizona is clear: “the jury may not consider voluntary intoxication with respect to the defendant’s culpable mental state [of knowingly].” , (emphasis added)
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
    we held that if an accused is charged with knowingly committing first degree murder, the accused is not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction.
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
    4 , that an accused is not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction if he is charged only with knowingly committing first-degree murder.
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
    343 , 116 L.Ed.2d 282 (1991)
  • State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991