Cited by

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

563 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
be the one really making [the] decision.” He agreed with the State that he should not be empaneled on the jury because of this issue and expressed that he may become “frozen and unable to make that decision.” Later, Juror 14 spoke privately with the court and reiterated that he would have difficulty imposing a death sentence and would consider it a “last option.” –02 ¶¶ 55, 58 (2006) (affirming denial of Batson challenge where juror provided conflicting responses about the death penalty).
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
( ¶ 82 (2006)); see also Poyson III, 879 F.3d at 888.
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fortune Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 34 (2006), which held that an appellate court may review suppression arguments first raised on appeal for fundamental error, controls our review of this issue.
State v. Womble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Womble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶18 The race-neutral explanation need not be “persuasive, or even plausible.” ¶ 54 (2006) (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995)).
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 34 (2006); (“Issues concerning the suppression of evidence which were not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal.”).
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 68 (2006) (noting that juries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions).
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A confession is prima facie involuntary and the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.” ¶ 39 (2006) (citation omitted).
State v. Gaxiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
No curative instruction was requested or necessary, particularly in light of the court’s instructions that the jury must disregard any answer when an objection is sustained; “[w]e presume that the jurors followed the court’s instructions.” ¶ 68 (2006).
State v. Gaxiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
3 ¶ 22 (2006); (outlining procedures for the trial court in conducting an evidentiary hearing when a pretrial identification is challenged).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 70 (2006) (“When considered in the context of the entire trial, we agree that the overwhelming evidence of guilt influenced the jury to convict,” rather than the verdict resulting from the prosecutor’s misconduct).
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶15 The trial court’s ultimate finding is entitled to great deference, Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 366–69 (plurality opinion), and we will not reverse the denial of a Batson challenge absent clear error, ¶ 52 (2006).
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The defendant must show that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 67 (2006) (quoting Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 606).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
¶ 68 (2006) (stating “[w]e presume that .