Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. King, 235 P.3d 240.

118 citing documents.

State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Impermissible prosecutorial vouching takes two forms: “(1) when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, and (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” ¶¶ 9, 12, -43 (2010).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Justification is not an affirmative defense; instead, if a defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the state must prove “‘beyond a 4 reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.’” quoting A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lawson, 144 Ariz. at 556, 30 698 P.2d at 1275; P.3d 240 (2010).
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Rodriguez, 961 P.2d at 1010.
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
See Mott, 187 Ariz. at 540, 931 P.2d at 1050 (noting the Legislature declined to adopt the MPC’s defense of diminished capacity “when presented with the opportunity to do so”); see also State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, ___ ¶ 11, (concluding that Arizona adopted an objective standard for self- defense rather than the MPC’s subjective standard).