Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prince, 61 P.3d 450.

91 citing documents.

State v. Edgemon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
at 176 ¶ 63; ¶ 9 (2003) (we presume jurors follow instructions).
State v. Guerrero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Guerrero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We presume that juries follow curative instructions, ¶ 48 (2003), and limiting instructions, ¶¶ 7–9 (2003).
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (2003) (citation omitted).
Ratliff v. Vanig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Ratliff v. Vanig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (2003); ¶ 48 (2003).
State v. Tupa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
We assume the jurors followed those instructions, ¶ 9 (2003), and did not consider the questions to which objections were sustained, see Payne, 233 Ariz. at 513 ¶ 120.
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
P. 13.3(a)(2); ¶¶ 14-15, 17 (2003) (charges properly joined under Rule 13.3(a)(2) “where separate 5Although Romero’s oral motion to sever was untimely, the trial court does not appear to have rejected it on that basis.
State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–60, ¶¶ 9–10, 17 (2003) (holding a defendant is not prejudiced if the jury is properly instructed on the limited use of other-act evidence and that they must consider each offense separately).
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
State v. Prince (Prince I), ¶ 13 (2003); see also State v. (Robert W.) Murray, (“A clear abuse of discretion is established only when a defendant shows that, at the time he made his motion to sever, he had proved that his defense would be prejudiced absent severance.”).
State v. Woodley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woodley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Tharp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Tharp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Stamm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Stamm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 17 (citation omitted).
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§§ 13-2810, -3601.02 (2010); ¶ 17 (2003).
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Because we presume that jurors follow their instructions, ¶ 9 (2003), and the undisputed evidence reflects that the victim was unconscious at the time Winiker used physical force against him, any misstatement of the law did not contribute to or affect the verdict in this case, and was therefore harmless.
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 17 (App. 2015); ¶ 9 (2003).
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ant’s own conduct and from the evidence which applies to that defendant as if that defendant were being tried alone.” This proper jury instruction “effectively cured any potential prejudice due to rub-off.” Tucker, 231 Ariz. at 142, ¶ 43; see also Murray, 184 Ariz. at 25 (A properly instructed jury “is presumed to have considered the evidence against each defendant separately.”); ¶ 9 (2003) (“We .
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13 (2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Aumiller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015