Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose, 297 P.3d 906.

79 citing documents.

State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2013) ( ¶ 26 (App. 2000)).
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
–05 ¶ 11, –11 (2013); ¶¶ 13–16, see also Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 367–68 (1979) (holding that the Constitution is not violated if ”a significant state interest“ is
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
¶ 9, (explaining that “a trial court may rely on counsel’s waiver of a defendant’s right to be present in certain circumstances; personal waiver by the defendant is not required”) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 9-10 (2013) (holding a court may rely on counsel’s waiver of a defendant’s right to be present absent “exceptional circumstances that would render ineffective his attorney’s waiver”).
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
¶46 The challenged evidence does not involve “victim” impact testimony, which we have recognized is “limited to the ‘impact of the crime on the victim’s family.’” ¶ 55, (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 62, (internal citation omitted).
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
We have repeatedly recognized the potential “danger that photos of the victims may ‘be used to generate sympathy for the victim and his or her family.’” ¶ 50, (quoting Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 141 ¶ 115, 140 P.3d at 924).
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 12, (holding appellate court “reviews a trial court’s acceptance of a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion”).
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