Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roque, 141 P.3d 368.

319 citing documents.

State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 12 (2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted), Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401, ¶ 54.
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶21 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Escalante–Orozco, ¶¶ 13–14 (2017)
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 128 (2006), abrogated 8Mullet also asserts vouching occurred “in the form of putting the prestige of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office behind the integrity of the investigation and charges.” 14 STATE v. MULLET
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 21 (2006), ¶ 14 (2017).
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 128 (2006), ¶¶ 13–14 (2017).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
If any “incidents contributing to a finding of misconduct are identified, we must evaluate their cumulative effect on the trial.” ¶ 155 (2006)
State v. Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 21 (2006), ¶¶ 13-14 (2017).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
¶ 108 (2013); ¶ 154 (2006), overruled on other grounds by Escalante- Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 267 ¶¶ 11–15.
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 47 (2007) ( ¶ 154 (2006)).
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 12 (2006) (internal quotations omitted); Newell, 212 Ariz. at 401, ¶ 54.
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶23 The purpose of the disclosure rules is “to give full notification of each side’s case-in-chief so as to avoid unnecessary delay and surprise at trial.” ¶ 32 (2006)
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant “must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 152, (quotations and citations omitted).
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 88 (2006) (–33 (App. 1996)); cf. Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2252 (2016) (holding that Apprendi prohibits the court from “making a disputed determination about ‘what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior pl
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶25 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant “must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 152 (2006) ( ¶ 26 (1998)).
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-11, ¶¶ 41, 48-50, 52 (2006).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17 (2012) ( ¶ 89 (2006)).
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Izquerdo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 Clear and convincing evidence is that which shows a high probability that the contention is true, ¶ 75 (2006), and this evidentiary burden may be satisfied by the testimony of a 2 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶26 The purpose of the disclosure rules is “to give full notification of each side’s case-in-chief so as to avoid unnecessary delay and surprise at trial.” ¶ 32 (2006).
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“A Batson challenge proceeds in three steps: (1) the party challenging the strikes must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the striking party must provide a race-neutral reason for the strike; and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is provided, the trial court must determine whether the challenger has carried its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination.” ¶ 13 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 ("Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law."); ¶ 66 (2006).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We give great deference to the trial court’s ruling, based, as it is, largely upon an assessment of the prosecutor’s credibility.” ¶ 12 (2006).