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