Cited by

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

262 citing documents.

State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
See State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 565 ¶ 19, (finding defendant’s allusion to consequences of crime before its commission evidence of premeditation).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
-76, -50 (2003) (Dann I).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See, ¶ 48 , (stating that courts "allow [] curative instructions and presume that juries follow them”).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Dann (Dann I), -76, ¶ 74
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Dann (Dann I), -76, ¶ 74
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
He acknowledges, however that evidence that does nothing more than raise suspicion against a class of people, , or reveals the bad character or criminal propensities of a person otherwise unconnected to the crime, e.g., Fulminante, 161 Ariz. at 252 , 778 P.2d at 617 ; accord Macha-do, n. 11 , 230 P.3d at 1172 n. 11, should be excluded.
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
-76, -50 (2003) (Dann I).
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dann (Dann I), -76, ¶ 74
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
Morehart v. Barton 250 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2011
Morehart v. Barton 250 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2011
to those proceedings at which the defendant’s “presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105– 06 (1934), overruled in part on other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); –72 ¶ 53, –46 (2003).
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
("Erroneous jury instructions are subject to a harmless error analysis."); Mohr, 150 Ariz. at 569 , 724 P.2d at 1238 (applying harmless error standard to instruction that created mandatory presumption).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
And, a trial court may exclude evidence offering “only a possible ground of suspicion against another,” Prion, 52 P.3d at 193, or “mere suspicion or speculation regarding a class of persons.”
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Dann (Dann I), -76 ¶ 74, -50 (2003).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
1482 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985); , -46 (2003), including a sentencing hearing following the revocation of probation.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
¶60 Most recently, the Court distinguished Essman in State v. Dann (Dann I), P.3d 231 (2003).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
¶72 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
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See, -17 (2007); -12 (2005); -50 (2003); State v. Cañez, ¶¶ 29-30, -26 (1999).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann (Dann I), ¶ 76
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Id.; , -17 (2007); , , -50 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
17 granting relief,9 see Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 3106 (1986), and the Sixth Amendment right “to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings.”
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” ¶ 18, (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
This court has expressly declined to follow the Perez decision on this point, -18 ¶¶ 29-30, -26 (1999), and has recently reaffirmed a “preference” for the Portillo instruction, -76 ¶ 74, -50 (2003).
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005