Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davolt, 84 P.3d 456.

382 citing documents.

State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
He “crept up behind” her inside the freezer and hit her on the back of the head with “something blunt.” Regina became 1 “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 87 (2004).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).
Rasor v. Nw. Hosp. LLC 419 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Rasor v. Nw. Hosp. LLC 419 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Seisinger , , ¶ 16, , quoting State v. Davolt , , ¶ 70
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” a witness “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” “The test of whether a person is an expert is whether a jury can receive help on a particular subject from the witness.” ¶¶ 70, 73–76 (2004) (a detective who had attended crime 8 STATE v. WOOTEN Decision of the Court scene management and homici
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 (2004).
State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Grewe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶11 “Matters of courtroom security are left to the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 84 (2004).
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Decision of the Court clear but wrong impression that being undecided was inappropriate coercing the verdict.” ¶19 “Jury coercion exists when the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors, or when the trial judge encourages a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict[.]” ¶ 94 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Ms2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Consideration of Mitigating Factor ¶22 Garcia contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider his age as a mitigating factor when imposing aggravated sentences for Counts 3 through 8.3 ¶ 112 (2004) (sentencing determinations reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 62 (2004) ( ¶ 14 (2002), ¶ 21 (2004)).
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re: Thomas C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 69, (in the context of Arizona Rule of Evidence 702).
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable jurors “could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶105 A motion for judgment of acquittal may be granted only if “no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 87
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016