Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899.

406 citing documents.

State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 65 (2006) (citation omitted).
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 67 (2006) (“A defendant may be liable as an accomplice under A.R.S.
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 42 (2006); ¶ 5 (2017).
State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
¶41 “Rulings on motions to strike prospective jurors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 88 (2006).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶15 “To be admissible, a statement must be voluntary, not obtained by coercion or improper inducement.” ¶ 30 (2006).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nevertheless, “[t]o be admissible, [Valvano’s] statement[s] must be voluntary, not obtained by coercion or improper inducement.” ¶ 30 (2006).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
at 528–29 ¶¶ 26–34 (finding that the trial court acted within its discretion when it struck jurors based on responses to the questionnaire that indicated they would not be willing to impose the death penalty, noting jurors’ views do not need to “be proven with ‘unmistakable clarity’” ( ¶ 89 (2006))).
State v. Dinkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dinkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Freeman v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Freeman v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
sua sponte order a mistrial.” ¶ 61 (2006).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 37 (2006) (“[T]he party moving for change of judge must prove a judge’s bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.”) (emphasis added and citation omitted); Simon v. Maricopa Med.
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although the court’s admission of expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 18 (2010), rulings involving the Confrontation Clause are reviewed de novo, ¶ 42 (2006).
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See VanWinkle, 230 Ariz. at 392, ¶ 16 (describing a “prolonged, brutal attack” as evidence of premeditation); ¶ 70 (2006).
State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by