Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hagee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19 (2005); ¶ 34 (2011).
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7, (stating that “[b]ecause [there was] no claim of prosecutorial misconduct below, we review for fundamental error.”); ¶ 19
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 47, (“[I]t would be anomalous to protect rape victims from questions about prior consensual conduct, but subject them to cross-examination about assaults.”).
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7, (stating that “[b]ecause [there was] no claim of prosecutorial misconduct below, we review for fundamental error”).
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8 (2011) (stating it is “plainly not misconduct” that a prosecutor presented evidence that the trial court ruled admissible); (holding “we find no specific misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in calling [the witness] to the stand since the court had given permis
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(party did not preserve objection where document not marked for identification despite discussion with witness about contents).
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 v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶¶ 30-32, (applying harmless error review for visibility of shackles by jury).
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 53, which we will find only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice, ¶ 7
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 v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 9 “A defendant seeking reversal of a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct must establish that (1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 7 , (internal citation omitted and quotations omitted.)
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
¶¶ 36-37, (finding no - 4 - error when medical examiner testified based on his review of an autopsy report and photographs).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
§ 13-751(F)(6) when the victim consciously suffered physical pain or mental anguish during at least some portion of the crime and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.” ¶ 61, (internal quotation omitted).
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
the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer.’” 5 (1985).
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011