Cited by

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

246 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State v. Dann (Dann II), -64 ¶ 51, -17 (2009).
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
2389 , 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988) (stating that warnings of the risks of proceeding to trial without counsel must be rigorously conveyed); ¶ 24 , (“A prospective pro se litigant must understand (1) the nature of the charges against him, (2) the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and (3) the possible punishment upon conviction.”); Binder, 170 Ariz. at 520 , 826 P.2d at 817 (stating that to “meet [the] criteria
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. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
¶ 26, (refusing to address on appeal from resentencing whether defendant’s murder convictions were void after convictions were affirmed).
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
We generally review a court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo questions of statutory 5 As already noted, we do not decide in this appeal whether we must apply the standards found in our capital sentencing jurisprudence to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the aggravating circumstance
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
¶21 We review de novo “whether the jurors were properly instructed.” ¶ 51
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
-70 ¶ 101, -23 (2009); Lynn v. Reinstein, 205 Ariz. 186, 190-91 ¶¶ 13-17, -17 (2003).
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
Cf. United States v. Taliaferro, 558 F.2d 724, 726 (4th Cir. 1977) (holding, in non-capital case, the juror’s consuming alcohol does not require new trial absent prejudice); State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 351, 363 ¶ 50, (noting, in capital case, that declaration of mistrial is most dramatic remedy for trial error and should only be granted if justice will be thwarted absent a new trial).
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
Although a jury must refrain from premature deliberations, “juror misconduct warrants a new trial [only] if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ¶ 115, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
-61 ¶¶ 29-30, -14 (2009); Bocharski, 218 Ariz. at 483 ¶¶ 19-20, 189 P.3d at 410; cf. Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 347-48 ¶¶ 81-86, 111 P.3d at 389-90 (noting a defendant has no absolute right to have the guilt- phase jury also determine the sentence).
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
“Victim impact evidence should not be allowed, however, if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.’” ¶ 98, (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825 (1991)), cert.
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
-73 ¶¶ 122-24, -26 (2009).
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
Cf. State v. Dann, 220 Ariz. 24 351, 376 ¶ 150, (according evidence of remorse little weight on independent review because defendant denied responsibility for his conduct).
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(citations omitted); ¶ 66 , (“We review a trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”).
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Dann, 207 P.3d at 618 (observing Arizona Supreme Court has “repeatedly rejected challenges to the Portillo instruction”).
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
5 See Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 546-47 ¶¶ 20-21, 65 P.3d at 927-28; ¶¶ 82-83, (no ex post facto violation for failure to require special verdicts or interrogatories); ¶¶ 76-78, (same).
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
See, e.g., State v. Dann (Dann III), ___ ¶ 28, ¶ 18

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by