Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dumaine, 783 P.2d 1184.

132 citing documents.

State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
Rule 15.7, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; -06 , -98 (1989).
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
are incorrect interpretations of Beck and implies that we should overrule those cases.
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
Prosecutorial misconduct does not require reversal “unless the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel.” , ( , ); accord Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
There are two types of prosecutorial vouching: “(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. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
Zara-goza, 135 Ariz. at 68 , 659 P.2d at 27 .
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
“The test for a Brady violation is whether the undisclosed material would have created a reasonable doubt had it been presented to the jury.”
State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Van Den Berg 791 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
citing United States ex rel.
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Soule 791 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989