Cited by

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

319 citing documents.

Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When a court attempts to resolve a discovery or disclosure dispute, “a party may not simply decline [that resolution] in the hope that the court will substitute a more stringent sanction.” ¶ 51
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“[Declaration of a mistrial is the most dramatic remedy for a trial error and should be granted only if the interests of justice will be thwarted otherwise.”
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 15, (finding no error in allowing juror to be stricken); ¶ 17, (same).
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 154, (citation omitted).
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
To violate this section, the “court must express an opinion as to what the evidence proves or interfere with the jury’s independent evaluation of that evidence.” ¶ 66, ( ¶ 29, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 152, (citation omitted).
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In considering claims of insufficient evidence, “this court reviews the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding.” ¶ 93, (citation omitted).
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶8 “We review a trial court’s decision regarding the State’s motives for a peremptory strike for clear error.” ¶ 12
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
As McDonald specifically requested the trial court provide the jury with the alleged erroneous instruction, he invited any error that may have arisen and “waived his right to challenge the instructions on appeal.” ¶ 137, see Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 136, ¶ 20, 220 P.3d at 256 (“[A] party invites an erroneous jury instruction by expressly requesting it.”).
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hon. chavez/robert Lee Gill 321 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hon. chavez/robert Lee Gill 321 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
¶61 Generally, the state may not use evidence of other acts “to show that a defendant is a bad person or has a propensity for committing crimes.” ¶ 54, (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
“Although not dispositive, ‘the fact that the state accepted other [minority] jurors on the venire is indicative of a nondiscriminatory motive.’” ¶ 15, (alteration in original) ( ¶ 12, ).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
¶ 16, ¶ 93, (viewing facts favorably).
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
2 We review a ruling on a motion to compel for an abuse of discretion, , 363 ¶ 5, and issues of constitutional law and statutory interpretation de novo, , 217 ¶ 89
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
an accomplice to an offense other than murder (i.e., kidnapping) and the principal commits a premeditated homicide, that accomplice liability does not extend to or is not imputed to the defendant.” We review the record to resolve “whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s [premeditation] finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” ¶ 93
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
§ 13-502(A) (“A mental disease or defect constituting legal insanity is an affirmative defense.”); ¶ 122, (insanity at the time of the offense is not at issue in the penalty phase).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
*232 ¶39 Thus, Arizona’s supreme court appears to have interpreted Atkins as “leaving the definition of mental retardation to the states,” such that the prohibition against executing the mentally retarded “depends on the state’s definition of mental retardation.” , Grell II, , 135 P.3d at 705 (knowing that “states had already begun to develop their own procedures, and had drawn in different places the line for establishing the mental retardation that would bar execution,” Supreme Court “left sta