Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McGill, 140 P.3d 930.

147 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
We review for an abuse of discretion the admissibility of evidence, and review alleged constitutional violations de novo
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Regardless, any departure from stare decisis “demands special justification.” Hickman, 205 Ariz. at 200 ¶ 37 (quoting Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984)); ¶ 22 (2011) (stating the Court will not overturn prior case law for “mere disagreement” but “will overturn long- standing precedent only for a compelling reason” ( ¶ 52 (2006))).
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 40 (2006) (citation omitted).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 (2006); ¶ 27 (App. 2005).
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
STATE V. SMITH Opinion of the Court admission of evidence during the penalty phase for abuse of discretion and give “deference to a trial judge’s determination of whether rebuttal evidence offered during the penalty phase is ‘relevant’ within the meaning of the statute.” ¶ 87 (2019) (–57 ¶ 40 (2006)).
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
Because of this, the sentencing phase may consist of an “aggravation phase” (sometimes called the “eligibility phase”) and a “penalty phase.” § 13-752(C)–(D); ¶ 85 n.9 (2006) (Hurwitz, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
Likewise, we review a trial court’s admission of evidence during the penalty phase for abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2012), giving “deference to a trial judge’s determination of whether rebuttal evidence offered during the penalty phase is ‘relevant’ within the meaning of the statute,” –57 ¶ 40 (2006).
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶30 Because a double jeopardy violation constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error, ¶ 21 (2006), we vacate White's conviction of possession of a narcotic drug for sale and the resulting sentence, see Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. at 365, ¶ 21.
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dulin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Generally, we review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 46 (2007) ( ¶ 30 (2006), but “we cannot require trial judges sua sponte to rule on issues not raised before them.”
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 21 (2006); Powers, 200 Ariz. at 125, ¶ 5.
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
§ 13-751(C); ¶ 40 (2006).
State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19 (2006) (jury may infer from the evidence that a defendant was aware of the substantial risk created by his conduct).
State v. Spry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Spry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶8 “A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.” ¶ 17 (2006) (quoting A.R.S.
State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eagleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 50 (2006) (the confrontation clause only applies to trials).
State v. Lomeli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lomeli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 40 (2006); ¶ 9 (App. 2003).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
‑59 ¶¶ 47-52, ‑42 (2006); see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (interpreting the Confrontation Clause).
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016