Cited by

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

716 citing documents.

State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
¶30 Kiles also argues that this Court’s holdings in State v. Moody (Moody II), -67, ¶¶ 188-96, -62 (2004), & 10 The legislature amended the statute in 1994 to eliminate intoxication as a defense “for any criminal act or requisite state of mind.” A.R.S.
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
See State v. Moody (Moody II), 208 Ariz. 424, 452 ¶ 98, (“[A] defendant who believes a trial court’s voir dire to be deficient cannot sit on his rights and bypass the opportunity to cure the error .
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
Discussion Armed and Dangerous ¶6 “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.” (citation omitted).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
See, ¶¶ 19-20, State v. Moody (Moody II), ¶¶ 83-84, (rejecting, post-Ring, 12 defendant’s argument that he was denied an impartial and representative jury by the trial judge’s decision to death qualify the jurors and declining
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
435 n. 1, ¶ 2, , 1130 n. 1 (2004).
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
When asked, counsel told the court, “the only reason I brought [Dr. Solomon] in is because these two [defendants] named her as a non-party at fault.” ¶ 54 Courts give counsel “ ‘wide latitude’ in closing arguments to ‘comment on the evidence and argue all reasonable inferences’ from it.” ¶ 180 , ( , ( , *304 (1989))).
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 296 (2007) (error in instructing jury on burden of proof regarding mitigation evidence not fundamental); ¶¶ 188, 193, -62 (2004) (misstatement of law in instruction on voluntary intoxication not fundamental error).
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
1019 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2004); , (right to counsel attaches at critical stage of criminal proceed *387 ings).
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
435 n. 1, , 1130 n. 1 (2004).
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
¶ 26, (stating that, for double jeopardy purposes, “[w]hen a case is reversed for any reason but insufficient evidence, the original conviction has been nullified and the slate wiped clean” (quoting Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 442 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
See, ¶¶ 83-84, -42 ¶¶ 49-50, -12 (2000).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
We review de novo alleged violations of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, 23 ¶ 59, but review a ruling on a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion, ¶ 75
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 456, ¶ 124
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 139 , (“In Arizona, a reporter has a privilege to shield a confidential source for an article.”).
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Garcia, , 151 P.3d at 536 ; , V 191, (change in law on temporary intoxication “was substantive because it deprived Moody of a defense” and, therefore, did not apply to his case); -82 , -35 (1986) (retroactive application of new, statutory sentencing aggravator violate
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at ¶¶ 25-26; -39, ¶¶ 25-26 , -34 (2004).
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
denied, 127 S. Ct. 1914 (2007), and we review legal and constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 62
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶7 P.3d 1119 (2004), the state maintains Felix waived his double jeopardy claim because he did not seek special action relief after the trial court rejected his guilty plea.
In re MH 2005-001290 142 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In re MH 2005-001290 142 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
DISCUSSION ¶ 5 We review the trial court’s interpretation of statutes de novo, see Langmade v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , and the exercise of judicial discretion for an abuse of that discretion, ¶ 62
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 22 , (“[A] petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim.
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
The scope of disclosure required under Rule 15.1(a)(3) is a question of law that we review de novo, see State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 445, ¶ 62, while we review the judge’s assessment of the adequacy of disclosure for an abuse of discretion