Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Arthur Cornell Wright 370 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Arthur Cornell Wright 370 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
STATE v. WRIGHT Opinion of the Court ¶11 The present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule “is based on the notion that ‘substantial contemporaneity of event and statement’ negates the likelihood of fabrication or misrepresentation.”
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–66, ¶ 42 (2003).9 8 As the proponent of the hearsay evidence, Havatone has the burden of proving that one of the exceptions applied.
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The two murder convictions stemming from a single death are multiplicitous because premeditated murder and felony murder are not separate crimes—“they are simply two forms of first-degree murder.” ¶ 50, (“[I]n Arizona, first- 10 degree murder is only one crime whether it is premeditated murder or a felony murder.”); ¶ 7
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
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
at 367 ¶ 79, 207 P.3d at 620; ¶ 16 n.3, n.3 (2005) (noting that a “jury need not be unanimous as to the theory of first degree murder as long as all agree that the murder was committed”); State 22 -67 ¶¶ 48-51, -20 (2003) (to same effect).
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State v. Tucker, 205 Ariz. 157, 165 ¶ 41
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State v. Chavez 239 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Chavez 239 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
160 n. 1, , 113 n. 1 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
5 We view the facts in the “light most favorable to sustaining the [guilty] verdict.” State v. Tucker (Tucker I), n.1, n.1 (2003).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
See State v. Tucker (Tucker I), ¶ 66, (noting that spatial relationship was established when victims were in different rooms of an apartment).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
n.3 ¶ 16, n.3 (2005) (reaffirming the principle that “[a] jury need not be unanimous as to the theory of first degree murder as long as all agree that the murder was committed”) (citing Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 645 (1991); ¶ 51, ).
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
___________________ R Y A N, Justice I A1 ¶1 On June 12, 2003, twenty-one-year-old Cody James Martinez, fifteen-year-old Michael Lopez, and several other 1 We review the facts in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict[s].” State v. Tucker (Tucker I), n.1, n.1 (2003).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008