Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 800 P.2d 1260.

414 citing documents.

State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Wide latitude is given in closing arguments and counsel may comment on the evidence and argue all reasonable inferences therefrom.” State v. Amaya–Ruiz, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A trial court “has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of 4 STATE v. HICKS Decision of the Court evidence,” and we “will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Amaya–Ruiz
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶9 Our case law has consistently held “[a] prosecutor[] ha[s] wide latitude in closing arguments and may argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence.” ¶ 28
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Amaya–Ruiz, (quotation omitted).
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18, (citations omitted); (citations omitted).
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Criticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument.”); (concluding that prosecutor did not engage in misconduct when he characterized the defendant’s defense as a “smoke screen” and called the defense counsel’s argument “outrageous”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Although the doctrine of transferred intent generally applies in criminal law, a particular statute may be worded so as to preclude its application.”).
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
n.1, n.1 (1990) (when resolution of one issue dispositive of argument, court need not address other issues implicated by argument).
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The test for competency is “whether [the] defendant ‘has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’” -62 (1990) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(explaining we will not reverse a trial court’s rulings on issues of relevance and admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
(no misconduct where prosecutor called defense theories “outrageous,” a “smoke screen,” and supported only by “innuendo and inference”), ¶ 61, (misconduct to argue that defense counsel and experts “fabricated” insanity d
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶24 “Wide latitude is given in closing arguments and counsel may comment on the evidence and argue all reasonable inferences therefrom.” (citation omitted).
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e review the trial court’s determination of the relevancy and admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 15 (2003) ().
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
that might be drawn from it.” Martinez, 175 Ariz. at 119, 854 P.2d at 152 ( ).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by