Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Newell, 132 P.3d 833.

558 citing documents.

State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
The defendant must show that the offending statements were “so pronounced and persistent” that they “permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial” and “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Morris, 215 Ariz. at 335 ¶ 46, 160 P.3d at 214 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); ¶ 60
State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Bouck 241 P.3d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
(finding no evidence that the victims suffered because “[t]he autopsy revealed no evidence that they had been bound or injured prior to being placed in the water, and there was no sign of a struggle”); ¶ 85, (finding cruelty in a ligature strangulation case when the evidence showed “bruising that occurred at or near the time of death consistent with grasping [the victim’s] arms, sexual assault-related bruises and inju
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
unless it is shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 67, (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Morris, 215 Ariz. at 335 ¶ 46, 160 P.3d at 214 (“The misconduct must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmos
State v. Mendoza-Ruiz 240 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Mendoza-Ruiz 240 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
396 & n. 6, ¶ 22, , 840 & n. 6 (2006).
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 396 ¶ 22 & n.6, & n.6 (2006).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
“Because the trial court is in the best position to determine the effect of a prosecutor’s comments on a jury, we will not disturb a trial court’s denial of a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 61
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
the trial court’s finding at this step is due much deference.” ¶ 54, 12
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
C ¶29 In considering the propriety of the death sentence, “we do not merely consider the quantity of aggravating and mitigating factors which were proven, but we look to the quality and strength of those factors.” ¶ 82
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
¶ 22, State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384, (outlining procedures for hearing).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 27-28, (legal question whether Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), applies to specific facts of case reviewed de novo); (due process claims reviewed de novo)
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We will not reverse a conviction because of a prosecutor’s improper comments during closing argument unless there is a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the ‘misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.’”
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
¶ 68, (“We presume that the jurors followed the court’s instructions.”).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
But “the failure to establish such a causal connection may be considered in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 82, cert.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, ¶ 69
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
the failure to establish such a causal connection may be considered - 35 - in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” ¶ 82, cert.
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
See Roque, 213 Ariz. at 231, ¶ 169, 141 P.3d at 406 (“[T]he relationship between mitigating evidence and the murder may affect the weight given to the mitigating evidence.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 82, cert.
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
403 ¶¶ 67-68, (holding that jury instructions stating that closing arguments are not evidence negated improper comments of prosecutor), cert.
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
See State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 403 ¶ 68, (stating that the trial judge properly instructed the jury that statements during closing arguments were not evidence), cert.
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007