Cited by

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

413 citing documents.

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
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time permitting reflection.” ¶ 66, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also A.R.S.
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶8 A defendant has a due process right “to have the trial presided over by a judge who is completely impartial and free of bias or prejudice.” ¶ 35
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Abdi 343 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abdi 343 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–28, ¶¶ 30–31, –11 (2006).
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Evidentiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause, however, are reviewed de novo.” ¶ 42
State v. Millanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Millanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶18 “The constitutional right to a fair trial includes the right to a fair and impartial judge.” ¶ 35
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
where there is no prospect of imprisonment or confinement after a judgment of guilty.” “Not every reference to an attorney must be construed by police as an invocation of the suspect’s right to counsel,” however, and an officer must cease questioning only where the defendant’s request for counsel is unambiguous.4
State v. Hooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
132, ¶¶ 42, 52, 915 (2006) (appellate court generally reviews rulings on scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion but reviews rulings that implicate Confrontation Clause de novo).
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review “[e]videntiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause de novo.” ¶ 42
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
“[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 the jury room’ sufficient to substantially impair his duties as a juror, allowing a strike for cause.” ¶ 89, ( ¶¶ 49–50, ).
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Kuder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Kuder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 40, (judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
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
¶ 30, (noting that promises and coercion may render statements involuntary).
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013