Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blakley, 65 P.3d 77.

65 citing documents.

State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We therefore must determine “ “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the publicity attendant to [Bigger’s] trial was so pervasive that it caused the proceedings to be fundamentally unfair.’ ”
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(declining to address whether Rule 404(c) applied to someone other than defendant and reiterating that standard for determining admissibility of third-party evidence “is .
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
Similarly, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.2 provides that an “indictment or information shall be a plain, concise statement of the facts sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the offense charged.” ¶52 Moore chiefly relies on State v. Blakley, 204 Ariz. 429
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
- 4 - “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the publicity attendant to defendant’s trial was so pervasive that it caused the proceedings to be fundamentally unfair.” ¶ 13, ( ).
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶12 Due process requires that a defendant be given “‘notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge.’” State v. Blakley, 204 Ariz. 429, ¶47, quoting Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S. Ct. 514, 517, 92 L. Ed. 644, 647 (1948).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003