Cited by

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

91 citing documents.

State v. Aumiller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 17, supplemented by P.3d 114 (2003) (finding no prejudice resulting from denial of severance motion where jury is instructed to consider each offense separately and advised that each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt); Burns, 237 Ariz. at 14–15 ¶ 37, 344 P.3d at
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Prince (Prince I), ¶ 17, ¶ 32
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
To challenge the denial of a severance, a defendant “must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” State v. Prince (Prince I), ¶ 13, (internal quotation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
We assume the jurors followed those instructions, ¶ 9, and did not consider the questions to which objections were sustained.
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
404(b) (evidence of other acts admissible for limited purposes); ¶ 9, (stating presumption that jurors follow instructions).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State v. Prince (Prince I), ¶ 13
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
§§ 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) 1 (2010).1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The pertinent facts are set forth in our first opinion in this case, State v. Prince (Prince I), -58 ¶¶ 2-3, -52 (2003).
State v. LEBRUN 213 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. LEBRUN 213 P.3d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 13 , (citations omitted).
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
See State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156, 158, ¶ 8, (concluding that when a defendant does not object to a jury instruction, any complaint about the instruction is “waived, except where fundamental error is involved”).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
“[A] defendant is not prejudiced by a denial of severance where the jury is instructed to consider each offense separately and advised that each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 17, ( ).
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. William Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Furthermore, we presume the jury follows the court’s instructions, State v. Prince, 204 Ariz. 156, ¶ 9, and the prosecutor’s argument warning the jury of the dangers of conducting its own comparisons of the impressions was not enough to overcome that presumption.3 Accordingly, the court’s refusal to give Gomez’s requested instruction was not error.
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
See State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431, 441, ¶ 49, ¶ 25, Cañez, 202 Ariz. at 156, ¶¶ 75-76, 42 P.3d at 587.
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
455 ¶ 56, , 161 ¶ 25, State v. Cañez, , 156 ¶ 76, , 418 ¶ 30

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by