Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pandeli, 161 P.3d 557.

106 citing documents.

State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 50, (citations omitted); -66, ¶¶ 9, 11, -33 (2001) (recognizing the invited error doctrine precludes a party 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
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
Generally, “[w]hen assessing 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. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
¶ 50, (discussing invited error doctrine).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 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
- 28 ¶ 43, -71 (2007) (noting that the determination of unfair prejudice in penalty phase “involves fundamentally the same considerations” as prejudice determi
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
( ¶ 51, ); -28 ¶ 43, -71 (2007) (explaining that Due Process Clause prohibits unbounded and limitless rebuttal evidence).
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
¶¶ 52-53, -72 (2007) (upholding admission of evidence of a murder in a separate incident as relevant to whether defendant deserved leniency); ¶ 38
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pandeli (Pandeli III), ¶ 16
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
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
Subject to overarching due process considerations, -28 ¶ 43, -71 (2007), any evidence that 7 meets § 13-752(G)’s criterion is admissible, regardless of whether the evidence was admissible at a prior stage of the trial.
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
¶5 We review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, but review issues of law de novo, ¶ 11
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
of Evidence 401 or 403.” 213 Ariz. at 156-57 ¶ 40, 140 P.3d at 939-40; ¶ 51, (cautioning trial courts to “exclude evidence that is either irrelevant to the thrust of the defendant’s mitigation or otherwise unfairly prejudicial”); -30 ¶¶ 41-59, -73 (2007) (considering relevance of the challenged penalty phase evidence and whether the evidence was unfairly prejudicial).
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
However, “there is no constitutional prohibition against the State arguing that evidence is not particularly relevant or that it is entitled to little weight.” Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 97, 111 P.3d at 392; -26 ¶¶ 31-32, -69 (2007).
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
See State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514, 529 ¶ 56, (finding jurors were likely not shocked by photographs in light of medical examiner’s prior testimony).
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
3 ¶¶ 48-50 , the defendant’s counsel responded to the judge’s question whether adverse testimony about other acts of his client was admissible, stating that he thought it was admissible and proffering reasons to the court supporting his conclusion.
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Id.; ¶ 50 , (applying the invited error doctrine when defense counsel failed to object to evidence offered by the State and affirmatively agreed the evidence was admissible); , (“[A] party who participates in or contributes to
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
See Tucker II, 215 Ariz. at 323, ¶ 118, 160 P.3d at 202; ¶ 81, (noting that insubstantial impairment and defendant’s ability to discern right from wrong lead to according such mitigation lesser weight).
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
He argues that this situation is 37 analogous to State v. Pandeli (Pandeli IV), ¶ 15, which recognizes that when a capital sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing, the State must reprove the aggravating circumstances.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
at 350 ¶ 97, 111 27 P.3d at 392; ¶ 32
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Pandeli (Pandeli III), ¶ 11
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Pandeli (Pandeli III), ¶ 11
State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008