Cited by

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

512 citing documents.

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
“Reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct requires that the conduct be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’ ” , (quoting United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Blevins, 555 F.2d 1236, 1240 (5th Cir.1977)))
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
645-46 n. 21(3), , 662-63 n. 21(3) (1992).
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(reviewing evidentiary rulings for clear abuse of discretion), ce rt.
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶26 Arizona does not recognize the offense of “second-degree kidnapping.” As the supreme court did in Rainwater, we adopt instead what we consider to be the better-reasoned analysis of Justice Corcor-an’s
State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
(potential for rehabilitation); , (lack of prior violent convictions); , (remorse).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
-34 , -38 (1989); , (stating that trial court is in better position to judge effect of prosecutor’s comments on jury) ( , ).
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996)
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
(citations omitted); -49 , -66 (1992).
State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997