Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945.

202 citing documents.

State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 26 (2016) (as amended); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Although we ordinarily review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 51 (2017), we review evidentiary rulings that implicate a defendant’s constitutional rights de novo, –41 ¶ 35 (2016).
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547–48 (2004) (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58); ¶ 44 (2016).
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Goudeau , , n.8, , n.8 (2016) ; see also State v. Rodriguez , , ¶ 6
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
¶25 Generally, “[w]hether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a photograph turns on (1) the photograph’s relevance, (2) its tendency to inflame the jury, and (3) its probative value compared to its potential to cause unfair prejudice.” ¶ 153 (2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-705, ¶ 96 (2016) (requirements for introducing other-act evidence).
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
n.18 (1983), superseded by statute on other grounds, ¶ 154 (2016).
State v. Crook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Mark Haskie, Jr. 399 P.3d 657 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Mark Haskie, Jr. 399 P.3d 657 Ariz. 2017
State v. Crook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Opening statements “orient jurors to the pertinent facts that would be presented and [] assist in their understanding of the evidence.” ¶ 94 (2016) ().
State v. Bustillos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bustillos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
¶ 50, (“Generally a defendant’s due process rights are sufficiently protected by the opportunity to cross-examine the state’s expert regarding the validity of the testing procedures.”).
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
eigh the evidence under Rule 404(c), the state contends, this would “usurp the trier of fact’s (ie., the jury’s) role.” ¶ 13 We reject the state’s argument for several reasons, Our supreme court has repeatedly stated that, as a prerequisite for admitting evidence under Rule 404(c), “the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other act.” , n.1 , , 511 n.1 (2012) (noting “[t]he state must prove *131 that the defendant committed the other act” , as source
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22 (2005); ¶ 148 (2016).
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-756, ___, ¶ 154 (2016).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 13.4(c) (explaining a defendant must renew a motion to sever offenses “during trial at or before the close of the evidence” or “[s]everance is waived”); ¶ 54 (2016) ().
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
¶17 “A defendant may waive mitigation if he is competent and makes the decision knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” ¶ 116, ¶ 240