Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119.

716 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Distribution Corp., , , 452 ¶ 101 n. 9, (noting court usually does not consider arguments even when raised in reply brief on appeal).
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 31.13 (stating that argument on appeal “shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.”); n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough .
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ( ).
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
App. P. 13(a)(6) (stating that the appellant’s brief must contain an argument with citations to relevant authority); , 452 ¶ 101 n. 9, , 1147 n. 9 (2004) (providing that opening briefs must present significant arguments supported by authority, otherwise the party abandons and waives the claim).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
[a]n argument which shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.”); n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”) ( ); ¶ 8, 24
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 Prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “(1) misconduct is indeed present[,] and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶9 “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that ‘(1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.’” ¶ 145, (citation omitted).
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chaparro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chaparro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough[.]” ¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”).
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 STATE v. TONYAN Decision of the Court interests of justice will be thwarted otherwise.” Roque, 213 Ariz. at 224, ¶ 131 ( ¶ 126 (2004)).
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (argument shall contain “citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on”); n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(B) (“For each contention, [an argument must contain] references to the record on appeal .
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶31 A claim of prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “(1) misconduct is indeed present and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145, (citation omitted).
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–58, ¶¶ 124, 135 (2004); Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C.
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Bobadilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bobadilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.9, ¶ 101 (2004); n.5, ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (holding appellate courts “will not consider argument posited without authority”).
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A claim of prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “(1) misconduct is indeed present [,] and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.“ ¶ 145 (2004) (citation omitted).
State v. Gunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ¶5 Even if we assume arguendo that Gunter properly presented the issues for review, we deny relief because Gunter could have raised these issues in a timely petition for post-conviction relief after the dismissal of his of-right petition on November 16, 2012.
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by