Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prince, 772 P.2d 1121.

48 citing documents.

State v. Ferrara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Ferrara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 608(b) by precluding witness from testifying about his purported untruthfulness during pre-trial interview).
Prince v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Prince v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
[i]nstead, we evaluate each of defendant’s claimed errors and determine if it, independently, requires reversal.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
exists when ‘a reasonably prudent person, based upon the facts known by the officer, would be justified in concluding that the items sought are connected with criminal activity and that they would be found at the place to be searched.’ ”
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
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
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prince, 160 Ariz. 268, 272
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
“Absent clear abuse of discretion, we will uphold the trial court’s decisions on questions of the admissibility of evidence.”
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992)
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
Pecuniary Gain To prove pecuniary gain, the state must show that defendants “anticipated receiving something of value as a result of the murder.”
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
See, , , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
2301, 2307-08 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)
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
We note preliminarily that the doctrine of cumulative error is not recognized in Arizona, , absent related errors, 324, 325 , 512, 513 (App.1978).
State v. Evans 836 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Evans 836 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
all leave Homer Davis Elementary School and who, approximately Vi hour later, saw a pink bicycle lying in the street on Pocito; (6) limiting the in-court experiments defense counsel was permitted to conduct with Dr. Walter Birkby, the physical anthropologist who examined the teeth attached to the mandible recovered in the desert and identified them as belonging to the victim, , , (7) ruling that James Thorton, who was disclosed as a surrebuttal witness after trial began, could testify during the
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985); , (defendant made witnesses to bar robbery lie on the floor, then shot them); with cases where pecuniary gain was not established: , (defendant killed victim to whom he owed money from drug transactions, but evidence did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he had killed victim to escape the debt); , (defendant killed his girlfriend and her children, then took $10
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(“Do you think I should get a lawyer?”); -85 , -86 (1987) (“I wonder if I need an attorney.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
Likewise, this court rejected similar arguments in two cases in which the warrants authorized the search for named items and “any other evidence.” -73 , -26 (1989)
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Mada 812 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Mada 812 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
a defendant’s question of a law enforcement officer: “Do you think that I should get a lawyer?” was held to not constitute an invocation of right to counsel.
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989
State v. Flower 778 P.2d 1179 Ariz. 1989