Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guerra, 778 P.2d 1185.

615 citing documents.

State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
against the defendant,” State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Flores 260 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 595, 858 P.2d at 1198
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
in his hand” and that McKenna, through his counsel, admitted killing J. See, , (deeming prosecutor’s comments on defendant’s silence harmless because defendant admitted at trial having killed victim; “we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict”); cf. Rhodes, 110 Ariz. at 237-38 , 517 P.2d at 507-08 (concluding prosecuto
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
We resolve any conflicting evidence “in favor of sustaining the verdict.” State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 204 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
¶ 15 A version of this instruction garnered a caution, but withstood scrutiny by this court, -94 , -90 (1989) (cautioning against giving a jury instruction that employs the “no appreciable space of time” and “instantaneous as successive thoughts” language, yet concluding that any error in the instruction was not reversible error); , 883 P.2
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
(holding that prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s silence on cross examination was harmless because it did not contribute to the verdict, as defendant admitted to the crime).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Lucero 64 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Moore, 65 Ariz. at 82, 174 P.2d at 290
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001