Cited by

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

178 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
Thus, the state may “rebut” mitigation - that is, a conclusion that the defendant should be shown leniency - by introducing evidence of the “specific harm caused by 14 STATE V. LETEVE Opinion of the Court the defendant.” ¶ 126
Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation, BMO Harris Bank, N.A., v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC, , 365 ¶ 7, but defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, , 556 ¶ 28
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 of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cornman 351 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review purely legal or constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 10, but defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 28
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 18 (2014) ("We review a trial court's denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion, which we will find only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice.") (citations omitted).
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 64, even DNA results with such limited statistical certainty “increase[ ] the probability” that the defendant was present.
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts.” ¶ 2 n.2, n.2 (2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
552 ¶ 2 n. 2, , 1209 n. 2 (2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
nalysis, but argues the court’s ruling may be upheld because the suggestive identification procedure was necessary under the circumstances and Wolfe’s identification was reliable.2 ¶6 We review the trial court’s ruling for a clear abuse of discretion, deferring to factual findings unless “clearly erroneous,”
Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer 330 P.3d 956 Ariz. 2014
Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer Ariz. 2014
Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer Ariz. 2014
Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer 330 P.3d 956 Ariz. 2014
State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In addition, it is the jury’s “prerogative to assess the weight of [the] evidence.”