Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Villalobos, 235 P.3d 227.

85 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review a “trial court’s decision to exclude evidence for [an] abuse of discretion.” ¶ 33
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
11 STATE v. CARLSON Opinion of the Court the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’” United States v. Wen Chyu Liu, 716 F.3d 159, 168 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993)); ¶ 27, (“The medical examiner’s specialization in pathology did not disqualify him from giving expert testimony on pain.
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. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
“A jury may use one fact to find multiple aggravators, but it may not weigh the same fact twice when assessing aggravation and mitigation.” ¶ 28
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
___ ¶ 95, (“Even if we assume that Cota proved each of his alleged mitigating factors, the jury still did not abuse its discretion here by finding the mitigation insufficient to warrant leniency.”); ¶ 51
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
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. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 266 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 266 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Although we review a trial courts decision whether to admit expert testimony for an abuse of discretion, , under Frye we review de novo whether expert opinion evidence rests on scientific principles that are accepted generally in the relevant scientific community, Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578 , 858 P.2d at 1181 .
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
¶ 33, (rulings excluding evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
Although a connection between a defendant’s proffered mitigation and the crime is not required, “the state may fairly argue that the lack of a nexus to the crime diminishes the weight to be given alleged 44 mitigation.” ¶ 39
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 10 “We review the [trial] court’s decision to admit other acts evidence for [an] abuse of discretion.”
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
See, –38 ¶ 27 & n.6, – 85 & n.6 (2010); ¶ 31 & n.4, & n.4 (2010).