Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco, 386 P.3d 798.

120 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
§ 13-753(H); –67 ¶¶ 8–9 (2017), and he was not a juvenile when he committed the crime, see Roper, 543 U.S. at 568.
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
[w]e will reverse when the cumulative effect of the incidents shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.” ¶ 91 (2017).
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 “We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 51 (2017).
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
b. Merits ¶16 “A fundamental error is error that goes to the foundation of the case, takes from the defendant a right that is essential to his defense, and is of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” ¶ 40 (2017) ( ¶ 19 (2005)).
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 35 (2017) (Petition for Certiorari Filed (NO. 17-90), July 18, 2017).
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶10 “A motion for judgment of acquittal may be granted only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 105 (2017) (quotation omitted).
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 91 (2017) (citation and quotation omitted).
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Blanchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶23 The purpose of the disclosure rules is “to give full notification of each side’s case-in-chief so as to avoid unnecessary delay and surprise at trial.” ¶ 32 (2006)