Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cruz, 181 P.3d 196.

140 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 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
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
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
prohibit[s the defendant’s] release on parole.” State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 160 ¶ 42, see also Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 166 (2000) (plurality opinion).
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
“[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial [only] if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ¶ 68, (quoting State v. Miller, 178 Ariz. 555, 558, ) (alterations in original).
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We therefore must determine “ “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the publicity attendant to [Bigger’s] trial was so pervasive that it caused the proceedings to be fundamentally unfair.’ ”
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
Rather, the judge should schedule a hearing at the defendant’s request regarding the need for the restraints.” ¶ 119
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
¶ 136, (finding no abuse of discretion when defendant did not contest aggravating factor).
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
¶ 42, 9 ¶41 Although the trial court erred in using the term “parole” in the aggravation phase instructions, the final penalty phase instructions correctly used the term “release.” As this Court noted in Cruz, id.
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
¶30 “The admissibility of a potentially inflammatory photograph is determined by examining (1) the relevance of the photograph, (2) its tendency to incite or inflame the jury, and (3) the probative value versus potential to cause unfair prejudice.” -69 ¶ 125, -16 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
the state asserts our review is de novo.
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
¶¶ 41-42, see also Dann, 220 Ariz. at 373 ¶¶ 123-24, 207 P.3d at 626 (upholding similar instructions as properly conveying the jury’s sentencing options).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
admissibility of a potentially inflammatory photograph is determined by examining (1) the relevance of the photograph, (2) its tendency to incite or inflame the jury, and (3) the probative value versus potential 15 to cause unfair prejudice.” - 69, ¶ 125, -16 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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
“We review a trial court’s ruling on the competency of a witness for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 105
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 158 ¶ 28
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
-64 ¶¶ 69-82, -11 (2008) (questioning specific jurors about specific conversation heard by other jurors).
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009