DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mauro, 766 P.2d 59.

108 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    We will reverse a conviction “only if „there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the jury‟s] conclusion.‟”
  • State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    We will reverse a conviction “only if ‘there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the jury’s] conclusion.’”
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Cynthia D. Johnson 156 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Cynthia D. Johnson 156 P.3d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence unless “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the jury’s] conclusion.”
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    We will reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence “only if ‘there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the jury’s] conclusion.”’
  • In Re John M. 36 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re John M. 36 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    We do not consider if we would reach the same conclusion as the trier-of-fact, but only if “there is a complete absence of probative facts to support its conclusion.”
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (jury could get necessary evidence from testimony, diagrams, and photographs as opposed to viewing crime scene); , (when view of premises immaterial to defense, defendant’s request properly denied).
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
    (father killed his son because he believed him to be the devil)
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Emergency Care Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court 932 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (“the defense was able to extensively cross-examine [the state’s expert] about his alleged bias, including his opinions in prior cases, and the amount of money he had been paid by the state to testify ...
  • State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    However, a conversation initiated voluntarily by a defendant does not constitute “custodial interrogation,” , and a spontaneous statement not made in response to interrogation does not violate Miranda
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (“ ‘[Sjince the appellant was examined at his own request, the exposure which was invited was a clear waiver of constitutional guarantees.’ , ”).
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
    citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    See, -08 , -81 (1988) (reducing sentence because of defendant’s mental illness where defendant brutally killed his seven-year-old son).
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. James 857 P.2d 1332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    (“Juror misunderstanding of instructions is not one of the grounds of misconduct listed in rule 24.1(c)(3)____ Information concerning how a particular juror viewed the burden of proof relates to the juror’s mental processes.”).
  • State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
    (rejecting argument that it violated the privilege to allow a court-appointed psychiatrist to testify that defendant requested counsel during the exam); -42 , -62 (1976) (privilege against self-incrimination is not violated when psychiatr
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    See, -59 , -800 (1990) (schizotypal psychotic illness, command hallucinations and voices, borderline intelligence); , (chemical disorder in the brain); , (valium intoxication, neurological problems, and brain damage); , (“prenatal neurological lesion” that disrupted the integration
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991