Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tucker, 68 P.3d 110.

136 citing documents.

State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
While premeditated murder and felony murder have different elements, that “does not make them different crimes, rather they are simply two forms of first degree murder.” ¶ 50 (2003).
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To be admissible, an out-of-court statement must “fit[] within one of the many exceptions to the rule against hearsay.” ¶ 41 (2003).
State v. Hennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The “complete denial of the right to counsel constitutes structural error requiring reversal,” id., and requires a “deprivation of counsel entirely, or denial of access to counsel at a critical stage in the trial process,” ¶ 23 (2003).
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/darren Goldin 487 P.3d 631 Ariz. 2021
DISCUSSION ¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision on the disqualification of counsel for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 23 (2003) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. David Joseph Duffy 486 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. David Joseph Duffy 486 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2021
Duffy, 247 Ariz. at 544 ¶ 15; see also, ¶ 23 (2003) (considering such issues on direct appeal).
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 77 (2014); ¶ 41 (2003).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“We review a trial court’s decision on the disqualification of counsel for [an] abuse of discretion.” ¶ 23 (2003) ().
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Tucker , , ¶ 50
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 42 (2006) ( ¶ 41 (2003)).
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Tucker , , ¶ 41
State v. Quinerly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quinerly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 41 (2003), ).
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 41 (2003), the court did not err in allowing Detective Bell’s corroborating testimony because it was not offered for the 5 STATE v. PUENTE Decision of the Court ¶14 Anabelle’s prior statement that Puen
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“To be admissible, a court must find that the out-of-court statement fits within one of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay.” ¶ 41 (2003).
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See, ¶¶ 50-51 , citing Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 643-45 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 42 (2006) ( ¶ 41 (2003)).
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
160 n.1, (citation omitted).
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Rezaik v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37, In re: Estate of Cohen, -41, - 24 (1970); -12 (1951); 268 P. 181, 184 (1928); In re Marriage of Tho
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
802, 803, 5 COPPER STATE v. ESPIRITU Decision of the Court 804; ¶ 41 (2003) ( ¶ 20 (2000)).
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016