Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64.

114 citing documents.

State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. R.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. R.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
which Florez contends was a case-specific decision.
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 479, ¶¶ 27-28 (quoting United States v. Aiello, 864 F.2d 257, 265 (2d Cir. 1988), ¶ 47 (2003)).
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 61, (holding that “the resulting risk that the jury returned a non- unanimous verdict constituted error”).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 1, The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Berger.
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Depending upon the context, [a duplicitous charge] can deprive the defendant of ‘adequate notice of the charge to be defended,’ create the ‘hazard of a non- unanimous jury verdict,’ or make it impossible to precisely plead ‘prior jeopardy [ ] in the event of a later prosecution.’” Klokic, 219 Ariz. at 244, ¶ 12, 196 P.3d at 847 ( ¶ 54, ); see also Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23 (“In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict.”).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 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. 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
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later prosecution.’” quoting State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476, 480
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Less than three years earlier, the court had ordered supplemental briefing to address “whether [a]rticle II, 11 [s]ection 15 of the Arizona Constitution provides greater protection against cruel and unusual punishment than does the Eighth Amendment to the United States C
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
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
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later 12 prosecution.’”
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
¶ 54, (“Charging more than one act in a single count is forbidden because it .
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
“[A]ny departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.” Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984); n.4 ¶ 34, n.4 (2003) (Berch, J.) (A relatively recent decision of this Court is not “lightly overrule[d].”).
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Depending upon the context, it can deprive the defendant of “adequate notice of the charge to be defended,” create the “hazard of a non-unanimous jury verdict,” or make it impossible to precisely plead “prior jeopardy [ ] in the event of a later prosecution.” ¶ 54 , (quoting Whitney, 159 Ariz. at 480 , 768 P.2d at 642 ).
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later prosecution.’”
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
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
He petitioned for review, arguing that the rulings below conflict with this court’s