Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gallardo, 242 P.3d 159.

129 citing documents.

State v. Eshaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eshaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
8 STATE v. ESHAYA Decision of the Court ¶23 After considering each of the instances Eshaya identifies as improper conduct, we conclude “[t]he record does not suggest pervasive prosecutorial misconduct that deprived [him] of a fair trial.” ¶ 47 (2010).
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-06 (App. 1991) (“As long as it is not based upon race, perceived sympathy on the part of a prospective juror toward a defendant is a legitimate basis for a peremptory strike.”) (collecting cases); ¶ 12 (2010) (finding “criminal history” a race-neutral reason to strike a juror).
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
“We must uphold a jury’s determination that death is the appropriate sentence if any ‘reasonable juror could conclude that the mitigation presented was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.’” ¶ 89 (2014) ( ¶ 52 (2010)).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
If the defendant objected, we review for harmless error, and we will reverse only if the defendant “established a reasonable likelihood that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶¶ 35, 40 (2010).
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 35 (2010) (citation omitted).
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The defendant must show that the offending statements were so pronounced and persistent that they permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial and so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 34 (2010) (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 35, 570, ¶¶ 46-47 (2010).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
at 285, ¶ 12 ( ¶ 11 (2010)).
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 35 (2010) 10 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court (quoting Morris, 215 Ariz. at 335, ¶ 47).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
¶ 40, (reasoning that similar instructions cured any prejudice).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
“We consider whether persistent and pervasive misconduct occurred and whether the cumulative effect of the incidents shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.” (quoting Morris, 215 Ariz. at 339 ¶ 67, 160 P.3d at 218) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Misko Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 34–35, (to reverse a conviction, “defendant must show that the offending statements were so 3 STATE v. MISKO Decision of the Court trial.
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
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. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
¶89 We must uphold a jury’s determination that death is the appropriate sentence if any “reasonable juror could conclude that the mitigation presented was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.” ¶ 52
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. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
¶51 Under abuse of discretion review, we “determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict.” ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Stephen Douglas Reeves 310 P.3d 970 Ariz. 2013
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 of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013