Cited by

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

563 citing documents.

State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Newell , , ¶ 60
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Galvez-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶26 “[U]sing a peremptory strike to exclude a potential juror solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ¶ 51 (2006) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ding an article that caused them to no longer be concerned about “the children.” Additionally, prior to deliberations, the court instructed the jury as follows: “If the court sustained an objection to a lawyer’s question, you must disregard it and any answer given.” We presume the jury followed the instruction and did not consider the answer suggesting Jordan was untruthful.3 ¶ 69 (2006).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Risner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs where the prosecutor: (1) “places the prestige of the government behind its evidence,” or (2) “suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the evidence.” ¶ 62 (2006) ().
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
See Phillips, 208 Ariz. at 286 ¶ 20; ¶¶ 79–80 (2006); –69 ¶ 74 (2005).
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griego Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
at 336-37, ¶ 55 ( ¶¶ 67-68 (2006)).
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
8 STATE v. PAYAN Decision of the Court ¶25 “[U]sing a peremptory strike to exclude a potential juror solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ¶ 51 (2006) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986)).
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 68 (2006) ("We presume that the jurors followed the court's instructions.").
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarez-Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarez-Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
On review, we will defer to any factual finding unless clearly erroneous, , and will uphold any remedy imposed absent a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion, cf. Walker, 490 F.3d at 1294 ; , (denial of mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct not disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion).