Cited by

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

262 citing documents.

State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
In attempting to distinguish Van Adams, P.3d 231 (2003), decided after Thompson.
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
572 ¶ 57, 74 * (holding that defendant claiming error in being excluded from pretrial conferences must establish a right to attend those conferences and show his trial was prejudiced through his absence); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 , 858 P.2d at 1175 (holding that in a case in which voir dire er
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
The instruction provided that premeditation can be “as instantaneous as successive thoughts in the mind.” , 479-80 ¶ 32, -29 (2003), , 565 ¶ 16 & n. 2, , 239 & n. 2 (2003).
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(error is harmless “if the court’s review of the entire trial record shows ‘every fact necessary to establish every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt’”), quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 581 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
[2] -72, 575, ¶¶ 52-54, 72 , -46, 249 (2003) (no prejudice where in-chambers conferences, side-bar conferences and matters only relating to legal issues are discussed in the defendant's absence and potential effect can be reviewed by court); United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352, 361-62 (2d Cir.1997) (