Cited by

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

563 citing documents.

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
State v. Cifelli 155 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Because the “trial court is in a better position to assess” credibility than we are, its “finding at this step is due much deference.”
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
The lack of “a causal connection may be considered in assessing the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence.” , 405 ¶ 82
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
As Justice O’Connor noted in Davis, such a practice not only protects the rights of the suspect, but will also “minimize the chance of a confession being suppressed due to subsequent judicial second-guessing as to the meaning of the suspect’s statement regarding counsel.” Id.; ¶ 33, (noting that it was “entirely appropriate” to first clarify whether a suspect was requesting counsel and then to proceed with questioning after learning that he was not).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006