Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Serna, 787 P.2d 1056.

72 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
(“The state may not misstate the law to the jury.”).
State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(affirming preclusion of proffered evidence and refusing to consider new theory of admissibility that was “advanced for the first time on appeal”); (“Our adversarial system properly and necessarily precludes injection of new issues on
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
¶41 A prosecutor “may not misstate the law to the jury.”
State v. Guerrero-Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Guerrero-Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
.[t]he state may not misstate the law to the jury.”
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murray 482 P.3d 1038 Ariz. 2021
Although “[p]rosecutors are given ‘wide latitude’ in presenting closing argument to the jury,” ¶ 196 (2016) (), their prerogative to argue their version of the evidence does not sanction a misstatement of law
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
It is improper for a prosecutor to misstate the law in closing arguments, or make remarks “to inflame the minds of jurors with passion or prejudice or influence the verdict in any degree,” ().
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker 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. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A Willits adverse-inference instruction “adequately protects a defendant’s due process rights” when the “state has destroyed or failed to preserve evidence unless the defendant is prejudiced or the state acted in bad faith.” -51, ¶ 11 (2014).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And because disqualification motions are disfavored, (citations omitted), the trial court should always consider alternative solutions that will adequately address the purported harm, Alexander, 141 Ariz. at 165.
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416,844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
This Court rejected this argument in Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583, -70, -66 (1990).
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
The rule contemplates conduct that is “semi-automatic and regular.”
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
We rejected this claim in Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
See Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
See Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 411, 844 P.2d at 578; -70, 787 P.2d at 1065-66 (1990).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416, 844 P.2d at 583; -70, -66 (1990).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416 , 844 P.2d at 583 ; -70 , -66 (1990).
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
Rejected in Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416 , 844 P.2d at 583 ; -70 , -66 (1990).
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(defendant found religion in prison and ministered to other inmates); State v. Gillies (II), , (becoming religious, showing remorse, and being a placid prisoner was mitigating).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
See Salazar, 173 Ariz. at 416 , 844 P.2d at 583 (noting that “no statute requires or suggests proportionality reviews in death cases”); -70 , -66 (1990) (United States Constitution does not mandate proportionality review of death sentences).
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997