Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bailey, 772 P.2d 1130.

65 citing documents.

State v. Curtiss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Curtiss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2026).2 DISCUSSION ¶9 Curtiss argues he was entitled to a based on allegedly improper testimony referencing his mental health.
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See, ¶ 126 (2022); ¶ 21 (2001); ¶ 29 (1998)
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
the probability that the jurors, under the circumstances of the particular case, were influenced by the remarks.”
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- 07 (1996) (concluding unsolicited statements referring to the defendant’s probation and detention status were such “a brief and tiny part of extensive trial testimony” that the superior court’s remedy of striking the answers and instructing the jury to disregard them was “adequate”); (determining the codefendant’s “rambling answer suggest[ing] that [the] defendant had served time in prison” was inadmissible but “fairly innocuous,” given its vague nature, and therefore did not warrant a mistria
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
wo factors in deciding whether to grant a mistrial based on a witness’s testimony: “(1) whether the testimony called to the jurors’ attention matters that they would not be justified in considering in reaching their verdict and (2) the probability under the circumstances of the case that the testimony influenced the jurors.” ¶ 40 (2003) ().
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Issa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Molinar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stoneham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Saltus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Saltus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We will only reverse a trial court’s decision denying a mistrial when it has clearly abused its discretion.”
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
The trial judge’s discretion is broad, , because he is in the best position to determine whether the evidence will actually affect the outcome of the trial.
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
-35 , -48 (App.1992) (accepting a somewhat similar explanation for peremptorily striking a juror); , (potential juror was previously convicted of misdemeanor assault, was indicted for burglary, and requested to be excused).
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Although we agree that a prima facie case can be established by showing that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove the only person of the same ethnicity as the defendant, , , the circumstances of this case fail to “raise an inference that the prosecutor used [his] peremptory strike to exclude [the] juror solely on account of race.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
“The trial court has discretion to decide whether to admit photographs, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 170 , 800 P.2d at 1278 ( , ).
State v. Simms 863 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Simms 863 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992