Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald, 303 P.3d 519.

53 citing documents.

State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
More recently, our Supreme Court noted that “voluntariness is ultimately a legal question” and explained that “[w]e review de novo whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial.” ¶ 8 (2011); ¶ 23 (2013) (quoting Lehr).
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Meriwether Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
in a capital case: a ‘general’ verdict of ‘guilty or not guilty,’ an aggravation verdict, and a capital (or ‘death’) verdict.” ¶ 13 (2013) (quoting § 13-752; Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 31.10(a)(7); ¶ 51, n.6 (2013).
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 37 (2013); ¶ 5 (App. 2013).
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶12 We review the interpretation of court rules de novo, ¶ 10 (2013), and “according to the principles of statutory construction,” ¶ 8 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Boldan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Boldan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules).
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner 413 P.3d 683 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner 413 P.3d 683 Ariz. 2018
¶5 Although we review a trial court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (2017), we review the interpretation of court rules de novo, State v. 2 ¶ 10 (2013), and apply principles of statutory construction when doing so, ¶ 12 (2017).
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules); ¶ 17 (2012) (constitutional issues).
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
First, although the Fifth Amendment applies in penalty phase proceedings, see Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 462–63 (1981), a defendant waives the privilege against compelled self-incrimination by placing his mental health at issue as a mitigating factor, ¶ 44 (2013).
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 396 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 396 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2017
Rule 11.7(a) prohibits admission of a defendant’s statements “unless the defendant presents evidence intended to rebut the presumption of sanity.” Similarly, Rule 11.7(b)(1) provides that a defendant’s statements about the pending charges are not admissible “without his [ ] consent.” ¶ 44 (2013) (stating defendant waives privilege contained in Rule 11.7(b)(1) by placing his mental health at issue; by doing so “defendant consent[s] to” admission of his statements “for purposes of [Rule 11.7(b)(1)
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stafford v. Burns 389 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 10 (2013) ( ¶ 16 (2003)).
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 11.7(a)-(b)(1); ¶ 43, (indicating, P.2d 491 (App. 1987), that Rule 11.7 is grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compelled self-incrimination).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
We review a trial court’s decision on the mode and order of trial for abuse of discretion, ¶ 13, but review de novo the interpretation of court rules, ¶ 10
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Faretta, 422 U.S. at 819 n.15; ¶ 31, (holding that, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 2, Section 24 of the Arizona Constitution, a defendant has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of a trial when his presence has a reasonably substantial relationship to his opportunity to defend ag
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the interpretation of court rules de novo, ¶ 10, applying principles of statutory construction, ¶ 6
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
This court “review[s] de novo matters involving interpretation of court rules,” ¶ 10, and reviews a fact-based “decision to permit or exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion,” McMurty v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶ 10
State v. Kuder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014