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. Dumaine, 783 P.2d 1184.

132 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶10 As Ruggiero correctly argues, “a defendant is entitled to a justification instruction if it is supported by ‘the slightest evidence.’”
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    Rather, reversal is required only when “the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of [the prosecutor].” Bible, 175 Ariz. at 600 , 858 P.2d at 1203 ( , ).
  • State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
  • Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Sun Health Corp. v. Myers 70 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
    ¶ 52 “The test for a Brady violation is whether the undisclosed material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to the jury.” , (citation omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Prosecutorial misconduct is reversible error only if “the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel.”
  • Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    -01 , -93 (1989) (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S.
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    -01, -93 (1989) 37 (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S.
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
    439 ¶ 12, , 195 ¶ 12 (2000)
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
    See Tankersley, 191 Ariz. at 367 , 956 P.2d at 494 (defendant’s motion to compel discovery of DNA typing strip photos and amplification sheets from other tests in same laboratory to “evaluate possible contamination in [the] lab” properly denied as irrelevant and burdensome); , (undisclosed evidence must be material to invoke state’s duty to disclose).
  • State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
    “Two forms of impermissible vouching exist: (1) when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, and (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”
  • State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -05 , -97 (1989) (not error to refuse instruction when there is insufficient evidence to support it.)
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
    Although advocates are ordinarily given wide latitude in closing argument, their comments must still be “based on facts the jury is entitled to find from the evidence and not on extraneous matters that were not or could not be received in evidence.” , see also United States v. Reagan, 694 F.2d 1075, 1080 (7th Cir.1982)(referring to the “fundamental rule, known to every lawyer” that “argument is limited to the facts in evidence”).
  • State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    The trial court denied all but the self-defense instruction, concluding that the evidence did not support the others, and that the self-defense instruction adequately “cover[ed] what the testimony state[d].” We first note that a defendant is entitled to a justification instruction if it is supported by “the slightest evidence.”
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • 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
    (to warrant reversal, prosecutor’s comments in closing argument must be so egregious that defendant is denied a fair trial).
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
    The trial court “is in the best position to determine whether [an] attorney’s remarks require a mistrial, and its decision will not be disturbed absent plain abuse of discretion.”