Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lehr, 254 P.3d 379.

81 citing documents.

State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-49, ¶ 30 (2011) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
Due Process ¶43 “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that ‘criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” State v. Lehr (Lehr III), ¶ 39, (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
¶ 78, (reasoning that the fact that a defendant “would remain imprisoned for his natural life if he is not sentenced to death” is entitled to little mitigating value).
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-48, ¶ 24, -87 (2011) (determining failure to specify the purposes for which Rule 404(b) evidence was admitted in court’s limiting instruction is harmless when purpose is apparent on the record); –96, ¶ 14, –09 (App. 2013) (determining failu
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. Lehr (Lehr III), ¶ 43
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson 307 P.3d 19 Ariz. 2013
See State v. Lehr (Lehr III), ¶ 21, (holding that “[a]cts need not be perfectly similar in order for evidence of them to be admitted under Rule 404”); see also Rule 404 cmt.
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
“We review de novo whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial.” ¶ 8
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 43, and will not reverse unless misconduct occurred and there is a reasonable likelihood it could have affected the jury’s verdict and denied Patterson a fair trial, ¶ 84
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
We review admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19, and issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 89
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by