Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moore, 213 P.3d 150.

116 citing documents.

State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
¶ 137, Harrod, 218 Ariz. at 284 ¶ 63, 183 P.3d at 535.
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State v. Patrick McLeod Nissley 387 P.3d 1256 Ariz. 2017
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶23 More recently, ¶ 57 (2009), the defendant was convicted of felony murder predicated on burglary.
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll 370 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll 370 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Quimayousie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17, “We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
–15 ¶ 69, –64 (2009) (holding that, where jury was erroneously instructed that actual reflection was not required to prove premeditation for first degree murder, the error was harmless with respect to a murder for which there was overwhelming evidence of premeditation).
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
suggestive identification procedure was necessary under the circumstances and Wolfe’s identification was reliable.2 ¶6 We review the trial court’s ruling for a clear abuse of discretion, deferring to factual findings unless “clearly erroneous,”
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 12, 14, -38 (2009); ¶¶ 84-85, ¶¶ 65-69, -96 (2007).1 Although novel assignments of instruction-related error can sometimes rise to this level, we will grant appellate relief only in those rare cases where a defendant has made “[a] particular showing of prejudice.
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. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 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
¶ 37, 27 STATE V. PAYNE Opinion of the Court Dann III, 220 Ariz. at 370 ¶ 106, 207 P.3d at 623.
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B. 302 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
Given 7 Boyston’s ¶ 70, and State v. Dann (Dann I), ¶ 20, is misplaced.
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
Finding it dispositive, 3 To the extent Rose argues that “his family ties and the love of a defendant’s family[] has been held by this Court to be mitigation,” we agree that “[t]he existence of family ties is a mitigating factor.” ¶ 134
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
¶ 33, (citing Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729-30, 735-36 (1992)).
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. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
4, 15, 27, 44, and 59 in the first trial and jurors 4, 10, and 105 in the second penalty phase trial.2 Because none of those jurors served on either of the juries that decided this case, “any error by the trial judge in refusing to strike them [is] not reversible error absent prejudice to [Martinez].” ¶ 99