Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hargrave, 234 P.3d 569.

100 citing documents.

State v. Zotika Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Zotika Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Crom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer mental anguish or physical pain.” ¶ 43
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
See Prince II, 226 Ariz. at 540 ¶ 98 n.7, 250 P.3d at 1169 n.7; State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 43 STATE V. BURNS Opinion of the Court 1, 17 ¶ 72
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, (“[M]otive is relevant in a murder prosecution”).
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Winterton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
7 -9, ¶¶ 12-14, -77 (2010) (concluding that other act evidence of racial bias was relevant to a defendant’s motive in a murder prosecution; the fact that the State may have had evidence of other motives for the defendant’s conduct did not preclude the State from also presenting evidence that a murder
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 10, (noting that any error “will not justify reversal if the evidence of other crimes would have been admissible at separate trials under Rule 404(b)”).
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
¶ 19, (finding no fundamental error in the use of potentially inadmissible statements when “[t]he State produced substantial evidence of [the defendant’s] participation” in the crimes charged).
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. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
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
prohibit[s the defendant’s] release on parole.’” (alterations in original)); Cruz, 218 Ariz. at 160 ¶ 42, 181 P.3d at 207 (holding defendant not entitled to Simmons instruction because “[n]o state law would have prohibited Cruz’s release on parole after serving twenty- five years, had he been given a life sentence.”); -15 ¶ 53, -83 (2010) (noting a Simmons instruction is not required even when a defendant is not likely to be released if given a life sentence).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
- 33 15 ¶ 53, -83 (2010) (“[The defendant’s] argument that he is not likely to actually be released does not render the instruction legally incorrect.”).
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See, ¶¶ 27, 30-32, (finding no basis for reversal when single armed robbery count named three separate victims).
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 v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 8 ¶ 13
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
(declining to address trial court’s exclusion of hearsay evidence when defendant did not offer it into evidence and no copy of it made part of the record); ¶ 61, (stating that appellate court needs a sufficient record “to allow adequate consideration of the errors assigned”) (internal quotation omitted).
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
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
and when possible, construe statutes to uphold their constitutionality.” State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, ¶ 42, (citations omitted).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
¶49 Although the (F)(6) aggravator is facially vague, it “may be remedied with appropriate narrowing instructions.” Tucker, 215 Ariz. at 310 ¶ 28, 160 P.3d at 189; ¶ 43
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 11 Rule 404(b) provides that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” In other words, other-act evidence is generally inadmissible for the purpose of “ ‘showing] that the defendant is a bad person or has a propensity for committing crimes.’”