Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Don Chappell, 236 P.3d 1176.

115 citing documents.

State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state 364 P.3d 472 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
For trial, the parties stipulated that, despite the detail in 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
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
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
But his general testimony about why officers in undercover investigations are trained to give persons the opportunity to walk away did not mention Williamson, much less constitute an opinion on his “guilt or innocence or tell[] the jury how it should decide [his] case.” see, ¶¶ 16, 18, -83 (2010) (testimony that drowning was “horrifying experience” and a “10” on “scale of 1 to 10” not improper opinion on ultimate issue whether crime committed in especially cruel manner); Doerr, ¶¶ 25, 26, 969 P.
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶9 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and defer to the trial court’s determination of relevance.” ¶ 28
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Antone Alex Gill 319 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Antone Alex Gill 319 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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
DISCUSSION A. Speedy Trial ¶7 Miller argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
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
We review the rulings on those grounds that Payne raised at trial for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 28, and review de novo constitutional issues and the meaning of the rules of evidence, ¶ 6
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 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
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 v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
See, ¶ 60, State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 261 ¶ 46
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
Apparently having seen a third woman earlier when casing the 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
¶5 VanWinkle then dragged Robert’s body from the cell and 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
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
State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
State v. Gipson 277 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2012
The jury acquitted Gipson of first degree murder 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
2 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.1, n.1 (2010).
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012