Cited by

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

406 citing documents.

State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[E]ven if a juror is sincere in his promises to uphold the law, a judge may still reasonably find a juror’s equivocation about whether he would take his personal biases in[to] the jury room sufficient to substantially impair his duties as a juror, allowing a strike for cause.” ¶ 89 (2006).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
We review constitutional issues de novo, State v. Nordstrom (Nordstrom III), ¶ 27, including evidentiary rulings that implicate the 10 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court Confrontation Clause, ¶ 42
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Id.; –51 (1994) (holding that “I think I better talk to a lawyer first” was equivocal); ¶ 29 (2006) (finding that “I think I might want an attorney” was equivocal).
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 25 (2006) (citations omitted).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 42, (citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 137 (1999)).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Followed State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
250 P.3d at 1170–71 (“Prince was twenty-six years old when he killed Cassandra, attenuating the impact of his dysfunctional childhood on his conduct.”); Garcia, 224 Ariz. at 22 ¶ 107, 226 P.3d at 391 (affording little value to difficult family background because defendant was thirty-nine at the time of the murder and “no evidence linked his childhood experiences to the murder”); ¶ 136, (reasoning that “childhood troubles deserve[d] little value as a mitigator for the murders [defendant] committe
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 37 (2007) ( ¶ 42 (2006)).
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 92-94 , (similarly explaining that the jury instruction defining an “accomplice” properly required proof the defendant “had the specific intent to promote or facilitate the offense that he actually aided, counseled, agreed to aid, or attempted to aid”).
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); ¶ 40
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015