Cited by

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

558 citing documents.

State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To determine if a prosecutor’s comments during closing argument constitute misconduct, the court will consider whether the “statements called to the jury’s attention matters it should not have considered in reaching its decision” and “the probability that the jurors were in fact influenced by the remarks.” ¶ 60 (2006).
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“To warrant reversal, the prosecutorial misconduct must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” 402, 132 4 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000) (requiring an on-the-record determination that a defendant has been advised of any proposed plea agreements).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Willis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Willis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Recchia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
We defer to the court’s factual findings, id., but review de novo its legal conclusions
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The jury was instructed about its duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, and ‘[w]e presume that the jurors followed the court’s instructions.’” ¶ 14, ( ¶ 68, ).
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because we presume that the jurors followed the court’s instructions, ¶ 68, and because the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, see supra ¶¶ 2–4, Clifton has not demonstrated that the alleged misconduct deprived him of a fair trial or otherwise warranted a mistrial.
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 62, (impermissible prosecutorial vouching exists when prosecutor suggests information not presented to the jury supports the evidence).
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 68, (“Any possible prejudice from the opening statement was overcome by the court‟s cautionary instructions that evidence did not come from the attorneys and that the verdict must be determined only by reference to the
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 (2003); ¶ 54
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In other words, the defendant “‘must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.’” quoting Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994).
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶9 We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, ¶ 22, and we view that evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Murrietta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013