Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dixon, 250 P.3d 1174.

82 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2025
¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 24 (2011).
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 64 (2013) (“The portions of [the substitute doctor’s] testimony concerning his independent conclusions also did not violate the Confrontation Clause[.]”); ¶ 36 (2011) (“Our cases teach that a testifying medical examiner may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in autopsy reports prepared by others as long as [s]he forms [her] own conclusions.”).
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 44 (2011); ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of a request for continuance for a “clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 53 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 32 (2011) (finding trial error harmless given the strength of the DNA evidence and circumstances implicating the defendant in the crime).
State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-52, ¶¶ 25-31 (2011) (jury must know about restraints).
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Although he filed one pro se speedy trial motion before trial, he did so while represented by counsel, ¶ 39 (2011) (noting no entitlement to hybrid representation), and in any event, that motion was an after-the-fact assertion that his speedy trial rights had already been violated.
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 35–36 (2011) (“Our cases teach that a testifying [expert] may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in .
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
6 The supreme court has repeatedly and uniformly held that “a testifying medical examiner may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in autopsy reports prepared by others as long as he 7 STATE v. KAVU Decision of the Court forms his own conclusions.” ¶ 36 (2011); ¶ 8 (2012) (“[A] testifying medical examiner may offer an opinion based on an autopsy performed by a non- testifying expert without violating the Confrontation Clause.”); ¶ 23 (2007) (“Expert testimony that discu
State v. Hamwright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamwright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, ¶ 21 (2011) (noting “[a]cts need not be perfectly similar in order for evidence of them to be admitted under Rule 404.”); ¶ 15 (2011) (noting similarities of victims; that “[i]n each case, a knife was used, the victim was restrained, and homicide was either threatened or occurred” and expert testimony that the defendant “had an aberrant propensity to commit sexual assault,” and concluding “the trial court’s propensity determination
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 47 (2011) (sexual assault is prior sexual conduct under Arizona’s rape shield law).
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
Forde , 233 Ariz. at 553 ¶ 11, 315 P.3d at 1210 ; State v. Dixon , , 555 ¶ 53, , 1184 (2011).
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
103(a)(2) ; State v. Dixon , , ¶ 44
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shirley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 22 (2011) (quoting Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 633 (2005)) (emphasis in original).
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 19 (2005); STATE v. MULLET Decision of the Court ¶25 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609(a), a party may attack a witness’s character for truthfulness with proof of the witness’s prior conviction.
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Aschenbrenner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Aschenbrenner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts.” n.2, n.2 (2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
See, ¶ 62, ¶ 56, Dann, 220 Ariz. at 358 ¶ 10, 207 P.3d at 611; ¶ 44, State v. Henry (Henry II), State v. Henry (Henry I), 176
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 29–30 (2011) (noting lack of evidence jurors saw brace or stun belt defendant was required to wear at trial).