Cited by

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

558 citing documents.

State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rusing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rusing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Thus, even improper comments by the prosecutor will not warrant reversal of a defendant’s convictions unless there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 67, (internal quotation and citation omitted).
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Love Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶10 “[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).
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
¶ 34, (noting that a defendant waives issues 4 STATE V. NISSLEY Opinion of the Court concerning the suppression of evidence that were not raised to the trial court).
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
As such, the trial court is in the best position to make a finding and is therefore “due much deference.” ¶ 54 (2006).
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 34, (stating that, although the failure to assert an argument in the trial court normally precludes appellate review of the claim, this court may review a suppression argument raised for the first time on appeal for fundamental error).
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 34, (stating that, although failure to assert an argument in the trial court normally precludes appellate review of the claim, this court may review a suppression argument that is raised for the first time on appeal for fundamental error).
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tarpley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tarpley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Finally, if the prosecution offers a facially neutral basis for the strike, the trial court must determine whether “the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” ¶ 53 (2006) (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 98 (1986).
Midland v. Amelga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Midland v. Amelga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 73 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 (2003); ¶ 54 (2006).
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Our appellate review is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, which we view in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 68, (stating jurors are presumed to have followed the court’s instructions).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016