Cited by

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

382 citing documents.

State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 8 “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 verdiet[.]” ¶ 94 , (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Webb v. Omni Block, Inc. 166 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Webb v. Omni Block, Inc. 166 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
But, “[t]he degree of qualification, goes to the weight given the *353 testimony, not its admissibility.” ¶ 70
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
When assessing the admissibility of photographs, we “consider the photographs’ relevance, the likelihood that the photographs will incite the jurors’ passions, and the photographs’ probative value compared to their prejudicial impact.” McGill, 213 Ariz. at 154, ¶ 30, 140 P.3d at 937 ( ¶ 60, ).
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶¶ 97-109, -81 (2004) (discussing Eighth Amendment challenge to § 13-501’s lack of transfer hearing requirement in tandem with defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge to death sentence).
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
¶ 113, Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. at 171 ¶ 20, 76 P.3d at 442.
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
As the Arizona Supreme Court has noted, an expert’s “degree of qualification goes to the weight given the testimony, not its admissibility.” ¶ 70
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
cf. Jiminez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (on retrial, parties may “‘make new motions, raise new objections, and present additional evidence’”), quoting United States v. Thom, 960 F.2d 1391, 1397 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991).
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
- 33 - Ariz. 191, 214, ¶ 99
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶13 “The stated intent of Proposition 102 was to make possible more effective and more severe responses to juvenile crime.”
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Passed by the electorate in November 1996, Proposition 102 amended the state’s constitution “to provide the legislature or the people by referendum, with the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws regarding all proceedings and matters affecting juveniles.” see also Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt.
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, ¶ 14 , but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo, ¶ 21 , (analyzing Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues).
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
“Error is harmless if the reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” State v. Davolt, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 39, (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”).