Cited by

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

716 citing documents.

State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 62 (2004) ( ¶ 14 (2002), ¶ 21 (2004)).
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough .
Caravetta v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (holding that failure to support arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi); n.9 , , 1147 n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough.”).
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We review claimed double jeopardy violations de novo, ¶ 18 , but we review a court’s decision to grant a mistrial and its ruling on manifest necessity for an abuse of discretion.
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion, and reviews “constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.” ¶ 62
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Because Caravetta failed arguments with legal authority may constitute waiver and abandonment of that claim) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (failure to present "significant arguments, supported by authority" in opening brief waives issue).
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
.” n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (citation omitted).
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In other words, Zuluaga must show “not only that the voir dire examination was inadequate, but also that, as a result of the inadequate questioning, the jury selected was not fair, unbiased, and impartial.” Naranjo, , 321 P.3d at 406
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 111, (defendant invites error by asking a leading question and may not assign the error on appeal) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
Kelleher v. Storey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kelleher v. Storey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Camboni v. Golden Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Camboni v. Golden Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.9, ¶ 101 (2004); see also State Farm Mut.
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 75 (2004) (appellate 1 At the same time, the State successfully moved to dismiss the notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Linares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (requiring that an appellant’s brief contain arguments with the proper standard of review on appeal and “citations to relevant authority”); ¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004) (providing that failure to present “significant arguments, supported by authority” in opening brief constitutes a waiver of the issue).
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶7 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 defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145, (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2004); ¶ 65
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-16, ¶ 9, -07 (App. 2000); ¶ 62, ¶ 16

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by