Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Anderson, 111 P.3d 369.

282 citing documents.

State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2291 (2006); State v. Anderson (Anderson II), -53, ¶¶ 109-14, -95 (2005).
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2291 (2006), and State v. Anderson (Anderson II), -53, ¶¶ 109-14, -95 (2005).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
¶49 The current version of Rule 15.1, however, applies “only to cases in which the charging document was filed on or after December 1, 2003.” n.13 ¶ 79
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
Prosecutorial misconduct constitutes reversible error only if (1) misconduct exists and (2) “a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” State v. Anderson (Anderson II), 210 Ariz. 327, 340 ¶ 45, (quoting Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 606, 832 P.2d at 623), cert.
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
See State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 86, (“The only issue at the aggravation phase is whether any aggravating circumstances have been proved .
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
See State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 48
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Anderson (Anderson II), ¶ 23, (rejecting identical argument).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
-53 ¶¶ 109-11, -95 (2005).
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶¶ 13-20 , -79 (2005) (noting strategic advantage to defendants in withholding such arguments until appeal; referring to such a claim, if not properly preserved, as “precluded” and “waived”; and making no mention of fundamental error review in that context).
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State v. Wall 126 P.3d 148 Ariz. 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
See Walton, 497 U.S. at 653-54.3 In our recent decision in State v. Anderson, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 109-14, -95 (2005), the defendant advanced the same argument.
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
¶¶ 74, 76-77, ___, ¶ 18, -07 (2005), and therefore reject Glassel’s contentions.