Cited by

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

558 citing documents.

State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 23 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 68 (2006)).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[I]t is[, however,] improper to impugn the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel.” ¶ 66
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Our supreme court recognizes the presumption that a jury follows the court’s instructions, ¶ 68 (2006), and here the court told the jurors not to consider Wilson’s custody status as substantive evidence of guilt.
State v. Couture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Couture Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Finally, because the trial court instructed the jury not to consider other-act evidence to determine Defendant’s character or that he acted in conformity with his character and therefore committed the charged offenses, he cannot meet his burden to establish prejudice resulting from the admission of this evidence.5 ¶ 68 (2006) (jurors are presumed to follow court’s instructions).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
396 n. 6, ¶ 22, 840 n. 6 (2006).
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 62, (discussing vouching).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 68, (citation omitted) (“[T]he superior court instructed the jury that anything said in closing arguments was not evidence.
State v. Decker 365 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Decker 365 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 26 (1998) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)); ¶ 40 (2013) (“We will reverse a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct only if (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the prosecutor's misconduct could have affected the verdict.”); ¶ 61 (2006) (“To warrant reversal, the prosecutorial misconduct must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
State v. Aumiller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aumiller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 34 (2006); (stating that “[i]ssues concerning the suppression of evidence which were not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal”).
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, even improper comments by a prosecutor will not warrant reversal of a defendant’s convictions unless it is shown that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 67, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compare, ¶¶ 64–65, (concluding that, absent opinion testimony about the primacy of DNA evidence, the prosecutor’s comment that “we all know that DNA is .
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 54, (the State meets its burden by offering a “facially valid explanation” for the challenge).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
But it is always improper for the prosecutor to “impugn the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel.” ¶ 66, (holding it was improper to imply that defense counsel was arguing for a position he knew to be false).
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, even improper comments by a prosecutor will not warrant reversal of a defendant’s convictions unless it is shown that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 67, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 68, (noting that we presume the jury follows the court’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary).
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 68, (superior court properly instructed jury that lawyers’ statements during closing arguments are not evidence; appellate court presumes jurors follow court’s instructions).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015