Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Andriano, 161 P.3d 540.

77 citing documents.

State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
404(b); ¶ 26, (finding evidence of defendant’s extra-marital affair admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove motive, even though less prejudicial evidence of motive existed).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
- 14 - 497, 508-09 ¶ 54, -52 (2007).6 Neither the State nor defense counsel objected.
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
We reject that issue as premature because Kiles “may raise in a petition filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 any objections to the protocol to be used.” n.9, ¶ 62, n.9 (2007).
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
See Dann III, 220 Ariz. at ___ ¶ 150, 207 P.3d at 629; ¶ 76
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
21 at 354 ¶ 119 & n.21, 111 P.3d at 396 & n.21; n.5, n.5 (2007) (noting that traditional sufficiency analysis is subsumed under independent review).
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
e. We have stated that “there is no constitutional requirement that the sentencing proceeding jury revisit the prior guilty verdict by considering evidence of ‘residual doubt.’” Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 136 ¶ 82, 140 P.3d at 919; see also Garza, 216 Ariz. at 70 ¶ 67, 163 P.3d at 1020; -07 ¶ 45, -50 (2007).
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 507 ¶¶ 47-49
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
This Court rejected this claim in State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 507, ¶¶ 47-49, -71, ¶¶ 81-87, -17 (2005).
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
denied, 128 S. Ct. 296 (2007) (a defendant “does not have an Eighth Amendment right to introduce [residual doubt] evidence at the penalty phase”); State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 506, ¶ 45, cert.
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“Rule 22.4 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure permits the trial court, upon being advised by the jury that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, to inquire how it can assist the jury in its deliberations.” ¶ 55