Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200.

173 citing documents.

State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hernandez 476 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hernandez 476 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 151 (2014) (“The jury did not abuse its discretion by finding the [pecuniary value] aggravator” where the defendant, convicted of first- degree murder, “planned and participated in the robbery to fund her minuteman operation.
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 18 (2014), but we review de novo Sixth Amendment claims involving a defendant’s right to counsel, ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Smith v. Stick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–65, ¶ 82 (2014) (“A trial court need not ‘define every phrase or word used in the [jury] instructions, especially when they are used in their ordinary sense and are commonly understood.’”) ().
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Crawford v. Washington, 5 STATE v. STUEBE Opinion of the Court 541 U.S. 36, 68-69 (2004); ¶ 80 (2014) (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68).
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 137 (2014).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶6 Although a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction “on all theories reasonably supported by the evidence, ‘when a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.’” ¶ 91 (2014) ().
State v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Price v. Slayden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Price v. Slayden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
¶ 8 (2009) (citation omitted); ¶ 146 (2014) (acknowledging that court procedures emanate from court rules and caselaw).
State v. Haupert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haupert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-65, ¶ 82 (2014); (holding that because “theft is a common term which, when invoked as the basis for a burglary conviction, need not be defined [and] .
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 18 (2014) (citations omitted).
State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 77 (2014); ¶ 41 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
We review de novo constitutional claims, ¶ 18 (2013), including the constitutionality of aggravating factors, ¶ 105 (2014).
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the court’s hearsay decision for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 77 (2014), and affirm if it is correct for any reason
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
See Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 468 ¶ 210 (“A prosecutor may properly urge the jury to give more weight to a defendant’s crimes than to the mitigation evidence.”); ¶ 47 (2015) ( ¶ 126 (2014)).
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
¶ 40 (2017) (conjunctive); ¶ 12 (2016) (same); ¶ 12 (2009) (same), ¶ 58 (2014) (disjunctive); ¶ 16 (2014) (same); ¶ 13 (2010) (same); ¶ 21 (2009) (same).
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
See, e.g., Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 470 ¶ 220 (stating that the (F)(2) aggravator does not violate the Eighth Amendment); ¶¶ 105–07 (2014) (holding that the “(F)(2) aggravator does not violate the Eighth Amendment” because it “channels and limits the sentencer’s discretion by explicitly identifying which offenses qualify as ‘serious offenses’”).
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hardisty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hardisty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-65, ¶ 82 (2014) (no fundamental error when court did not define "theft" in felony murder instruction).