Cited by

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

382 citing documents.

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
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(degree of expert’s qualifications goes to weight of testimony, not its admissibility).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶12 Juror misconduct necessitates “a new trial only if ‘the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.’” State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 208 ¶ 58, ( ) (emphasis and internal citation omitted).
State v. SOSNOWICZ 270 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. SOSNOWICZ 270 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
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
Actual Prejudice ¶ 20 If prejudice cannot be presumed, a defendant instead must show “the pretrial publicity was actually prejudicial and likely deprived him of a fair trial.” Cruz, , 181 P.3d at 204
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
¶18 On the other hand, “[w]hen reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” P.2d at 1272
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
Standard of review ¶22 Generally, “[m]atters of courtroom security are left to the discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 84
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“Sentencing determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion,” but we review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
It “applies to action by state officers under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ¶ 23, (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961)).
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Like the determination whether a statement was knowing and intelligent, “[v]oluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.”
State v. Latham 219 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Latham 219 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 87 , (citation omitted).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
¶ 50, (“The critical inquiry is the 21 ¶47 The trial court denied Kiles’ motion.
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
The degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.” , 210 ¶ 70, (citation omitted).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
b. Actual prejudice ¶21 In the absence of presumed prejudice, a defendant may demonstrate “that the pretrial publicity was actually prejudicial and likely deprived him of a fair trial.” ¶ 49