Cited by

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

147 citing documents.

State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
801(c), 802; ¶ 28 (2007); ¶ 45 (App. 2009) (explaining police reports properly excluded as hearsay).2 As a corollary, a witness’s “hearsay 2 ¶ 52 (2006), the State argues that the Confrontation Clause and rules of evidence do not apply to a trial on aggravators.
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. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In a similar vein, the Double Jeopardy Clause “protects defendants against both multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 21 (2006) (internal quotation omitted).
Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Backus v. Ellison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
a relevancy determination under Arizona Rule of Evidence 401 or 403.” ¶ 40
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
¶ 21, –58 ¶ 45, –41 (2006).
State v. Jude Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jude Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶19 (2006) (holding that the jury was reasonable in finding that defendant was aware of a substantial risk to human life when he burned down an apartment building without knowing whether people were inside).
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–58, ¶ 45, –41 (2006); Dep’t ¶ 8
Kimberly B. v. Adcs, P.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kimberly B. v. Adcs, P.B. 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. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Nash v. Nash 307 P.3d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Nash v. Nash 307 P.3d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
sing the admissibility of photographs, we ‘consider the photographs’ relevance, the likelihood that the photographs will incite the jurors’ passions, and the photographs’ probative value compared to their prejudicial impact.’” ¶ 23, ( ¶ 30, ).
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
The trial court overruled Martinez’s objection, P.3d 930 (2006).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
This Court rejected this argument in [State v.] McGill, 213 Ariz. [147, 161 ¶ 59, ].
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
¶ 59, – 15, ¶ 43, –05 (1999).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Rather, “[w]e will overturn long-standing precedent only for a compelling reason.” ¶ 52, (noting our prior case law “should be adhered to unless the reasons of the prior decisions have ceased to exist or the prior decision was clearly erroneous or manifestly
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010