Cited by

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

373 citing documents.

State v. Foncette 356 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Warrantless searches of homes are presumptively invalid, Jacot, 330 P.3d at 984, and motel rooms have been afforded the same protections as homes, see, (“Hotel guests are entitled to full constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”).
Guy N. v. Dcs, B.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Guy N. v. Dcs, B.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12, (noting that even if juvenile court erred in admitting disputed exhibits, the error was harmless); ¶ 39, (noting that error is harmless when “the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict”).
State of Arizona v. Hon. bernstein/herman 349 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Hon. bernstein/herman 349 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2015
¶9 We review the interpretation of court rules de novo, ¶ 4, but we review a trial court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 66
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Alice M. v. Department of Child Safety 345 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(noting preference for reinstruction and further deliberations when jury returns guilty verdicts for charged and lesser included offense); ¶¶ 93-95 , (permitting court to allow jurors to make changes to verdict forms when foreperson’s comments indicated jurors had been confused about how to complete forms and forms therefore did not reflect jury’s verdict).
Alice M. v. Department of Child Safety 345 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 39 , (noting that error is harmless when “the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict”) The record shows that, even without the exhibits, sufficient evidence was presented to terminate Mother’s parental rights.
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Swett v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 70, (explaining that “[t]he degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Laws, ch. 220, § 72; see also Rodriguez, 71 P.3d at 923.
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶14 In the absence of presumed prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate “that the pretrial publicity was actually prejudicial and likely deprived him of a fair trial.” ¶ 49, 471 (2004).
State of Arizona v. Alicia Leah Gilstrap 332 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Alicia Leah Gilstrap 332 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See, (improperly admitted gruesome crime scene photographs did not contribute to verdict due to strength of remaining evidence).
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
See Boyston, 231 Ariz. at 544 ¶ 18, 298 P.3d at 892 ( ¶ 70, ).
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶6 “The admission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Arvin Whit Williams 311 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
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
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
-10 ¶ 68, -75 (2004) (recognizing the validity of the product rule); -83, -86 (1993) (providing an example of product rule calculation).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Id.; (interpreting former Rule 702, which also required expert have specialized knowledge).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013