Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guerra, 778 P.2d 1185.
- State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- State v. Panveno 996 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
- State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
- State v. Hoover 986 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Hoover 986 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
-
State v. Hughes
969 P.2d 1184
Ariz. 1998
Although an improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify can be harmless error in some eases, , in other cases it can be fundamental error.
- State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Torres-Soto 927 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Torres-Soto 927 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-
State v. Orendain
916 P.2d 1064
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The state argues that the jurors’ instructions must be read as a whole, , and that the closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.
- State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Ovind 924 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Carey 920 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
-
State v. Carey
920 P.2d 1
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict
- State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
-
State v. Eastlack
883 P.2d 999
Ariz. 1994
where we stated a jury may be misled by an instruction placing undue emphasis on the rapidity with which premeditation can occur____ However, jury instructions must be considered as a whole— A case will not be reversed because some isolated portion of an instruction might be misleadi
- State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
-
State v. Styers
865 P.2d 765
Ariz. 1993
2 “When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the court will affirm the conviction if there is ‘substantial evidence’ to support the guilty verdict.”
- State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Melendez 834 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1992
-
State v. Melendez
834 P.2d 154
Ariz. 1992
(fundamental fairness precludes prosecution from using “an arrested person’s silence to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial” given “implicit assurance” in Miranda warnings “that silence will carry no penalty”); Oshrin, 142 Ariz. at 111 , 688 P.2d at 1003 (fundamental
- State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
- State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
- State v. Guerrero 840 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992