Cited by

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

716 citing documents.

State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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[.]” ¶ 145, (citations omitted).
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (failure to present “significant arguments, supported by authority” in opening brief waives issue).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein 381 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phx News v. Hon reinstein/state/moran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Challenges to grand jury findings “must be made by motion followed by special action before trial; they are not reviewable on appeal.” -40 ¶ 31 (2004).
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ades/gagliardi v. Gagliardi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ades/gagliardi v. Gagliardi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.” n.9, ¶ 101 (2004).
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 33 (App. 2011) (noting that the failure to argue a claim in the opening brief constitutes abandonment and waiver) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004), and Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch.
State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
4 STATE v. WAYMENT Decision of the Court Ariz. 424, 452 n.9, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough .
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 19–20 (2005); ¶ 120 (2004) (evidentiary 4 STATE v. HOOVER Decision of the Court objection on one ground preserves the issue only as to the ground actually raised; other grounds asserted on appeal subject to fundamental error review
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 We will reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct 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. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 62, see also Walker, 215 Ariz. at 94, ¶ 16, 158 P.3d at 223 (reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for “clear and manifest error” (citation omitted)).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶14 We will reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct 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. Turvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re Mh2015-000579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (providing that arguments shall contain “citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on”); n.9 ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (providing that opening briefs must present significant arguments supported by authority, otherwise the party abandons and waives the claim).
In Re Mh2015-000579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 62 (App. 2009) (noting ARCAP 13(a)(6) “requires the appellant to provide ‘citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on’” and “[f]ailure to do so can constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim”) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).
Maisano v. Merchant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Maisano v. Merchant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 101 n.9, n.9 (2004) (providing that failure to argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim).
State v. Suggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Suggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by