Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dann, 207 P.3d 604.

246 citing documents.

State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 125 (2009) (noting alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed for harmless error) ( ¶ 47 (2007)).
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶¶ 27, 51, 616-17 (2009).
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
¶8 This Court’s P.3d 604 (2009), relied on by the trial court, does not direct a different result.
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
However, “‘the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.’” Id., quoting Encinas, 132 Ariz. at 496-97, 647 P.2d at 627-28; (“Jurors may .
State v. Tarantino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tarantino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-64, ¶ 51, -17 (2009) (citations and internal quotes omitted).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Followed State v. Rivera 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
Id.; ¶ 124, (holding that defendants may not “presentence” themselves).
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–64, ¶ 51 (2009) (citing State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
“When a defendant objects to an alleged act of prosecutorial misconduct” and raises the overruling of the objection as error on appeal, we first look to see whether error has occurred; if it has, “we review the issue for harmless error.” ¶ 125
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Washington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Robert Fleming v. State of Arizona, Az. Dept. of Public Safety, Gallivan 337 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Cf. DeVries, 211 P.3d at 1191 (construing “attributable to” by reference to respected dictionaries); (jury to apply ordinary meaning of word if undefined).
State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
Forde contends that the phrases “firmly convinced” and “real possibility” in the instructions unconstitutionally permitted the jury to apply a lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” and have repeatedly rejected challenges to them, see, e.g., State v. Dann (Dann III), ¶ 65
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
See State v. Dann (Dann III), ¶ 76
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
See State v. Dann (Dann III), ¶ 35
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 v. Dann (Dann II), -73 ¶ 122, -26 (2009).
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
¶ 73, (requiring no further Enmund-Tison finding after a premeditated murder verdict).
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State v. Dann (Dann II), ¶ 96
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
ithout question, the scripted VIE was quite emotional and forceful in its tone and tenor, and even the State concedes that the widow’s statements were “admittedly emotional.” ¶45 VIE is generally admissible at sentencing unless it is “so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.” State v. Dann (Dann II), ¶ 98, (quoting Payne, 501 U.S. at 825).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by