Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593.

512 citing documents.

State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(finding the question to be “whether the prosecutor’s actions were reasonably likely to have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying him a fair trial”).
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
On appeal, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we must resolve all reasonable inferences against defendant.”
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The law does not require or even permit such a procedure.” , ( , ).
Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 1 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
at 368 , 943 P.2d at 728 ; see also State v. Atwood -63 , -80 (1992) (Corcoran, J., specially concurring) (rejecting Sterling’s reading of the statute, stating that the prosecution needs to prove only those elements contained in § 1304(A) to convict the defendant of kidnapping).
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rutledge 4 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
(finding that death-qualification questioning does not constitute error, “fundamental or otherwise”); , (finding that the death-qualification issue had been waived, but “there is, in any event, no error, fundamental or otherwise”); , (impartial jury requirement is fulfilled when conscientious jurors are selected, quoting Martinez-Villareal).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
3017 , 125 L.Ed.2d 707 (1993); 2) prosecutor’s unfettered discretion, , cert.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
(harmless error exists when there is no “ ‘reasonable probability ...
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. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 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. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
This court looks to “such factors as a defendant’s intelligence and past experience to determine whether age is a mitigating circumstance.” -53 , -70 (1992).
State v. Hoover 986 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998