Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dann, 74 P.3d 231.

266 citing documents.

State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶12 A declaration of mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 36, (holding the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding third-party culpability evidence where “the tenuous and speculative nature of the evidence caused it to fail the Rule 403 test”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(erroneous jury instructions subject to harmless-error review); ¶¶ 10-12, -45 (App. 2013) (conducting harmless-error review after concluding “the court did not instruct jurors regarding an element of the offense that the State was requir
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
is ‘the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.’” ¶ 43 (2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montelongo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 46, (reiterating that jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
14 STATE v. LEWIS Opinion of the Court ¶38 “Erroneous jury instructions are subject to a harmless error analysis.”
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Followed State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” ¶ 43, (citation omitted).
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“[B]ecause the trial judge is in the best position to assess the impact of a witness’s statements on the jury, we defer to the trial judge’s discretionary determination.”
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION ¶7 A declaration of mistrial is “’the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.’” 3Absent material revisions from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
An error in a jury instruction is harmless if it appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the jury’s verdict, and a review of the entire trial record demonstrates “every fact necessary to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 18, (citing Rose v. Clark, 478, U.S. 570, 581 (1986)).
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
We review constitutional claims de novo, ¶ 38, and a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion, State v. Dann (Dann I), ¶ 43
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Yazzie 307 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Yazzie 307 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
3 ¶ 18 , (to find harmless error based on erroneous jury instruction, appellate court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict and that the record establishes “every fact necessary to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doub
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
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” State v. Dann (Dann I), ¶ 2
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
Given 7 Boyston’s ¶ 70, and State v. Dann (Dann I), ¶ 20, is misplaced.
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
Uhl left around 5:00 p.m., and Parker’s girlfriend picked him up from the 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” ¶ 2
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by