Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller, 316 P.3d 1219.

79 citing documents.

Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The crime is complete “when the solicitor, acting with the requisite intent, makes the command or request.” ¶ 32 (2013) ( n. 1 (1982) and then quoting W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law (1972)).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 13.4(a); ¶ 18 (2013).
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 372 P.3d 999 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray 372 P.3d 999 Ariz. 2016
89 ¶ 5, (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); , 43 ¶ 41, (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
¶ 29, (holding that the Frye, not Daubert, standard applied to defendant’s trial, which ended before Arizona’s amended Evidence Rule 702 took effect in January 2012); Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 616 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting the absence of “authority in which the Daubert standard has b
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 23 (2013) ( ¶ 131 (2006)).
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 21 When determining whether a mistrial is warranted, we look to “ ‘(1) whether the jury has heard what it should not hear, and (2) the probability that what it heard influenced [it].’” , , (alteration in Miller ).
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
but should act as ministers of justice to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial.” State v. Miller, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 21 n.3, n.3 (2013) (citing Roque, 213 Ariz. at 228 ¶ 153, 141 P.3d at 403 (2006)).
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bassett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See State v. Miller, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 30, (“The 7 STATE v. BASSETT Decision of the Court ¶19 Under Rule 702, expert testimony is admissible if the expert’s specialized knowledge “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or