Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Comer, 799 P.2d 333.

147 citing documents.

State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 32 (2002) (citations omitted) (“The ‘otherwise connected together in their commission’ language addresses whether evidence of the two crimes was so intertwined and related that much the same evidence was relevant to and would prove both, and the crimes themselves arose out of a series of connected acts.”); (concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to sever where the record demonstrated the “two sets of offenses were part of a connected series of events which shared
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(stating a juror with preconceived notions can be rehabilitated by further questions during the voir dire regarding their abilities and willingness to be impartial).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Morris, 215 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 58 ().
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[F]ailure to object to a comment in closing argument constitutes waiver of the right to review unless the comment amounts to fundamental error.”) ().
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And fourth, the likelihood that the jury confused the counts was minimal, especially because, as noted, the jury found Guinard not guilty on the April counts.6
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Given the wide latitude prosecutors have in presenting their closing arguments to the jury, “[w]e will not reverse a conviction because of a prosecutor’s improper comments during closing argument unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” ¶ 23, (intern
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
be established [even] when the use of force precedes the actual taking of property, so long as the use of force is accompanied with the intent to take another’s property.”
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
Instead, as in State v. Comer, substantial evidence was introduced that 25 “[a]ppellant’s financial condition provided the motive for [the] killing.” 8 J. Failure to Give Manslaughter Instruction ¶66 Cota argues that the trial court erred in refusing a lesser-included offense instruction on manslaughter.
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Prosecutors have “wide latitude in their closing arguments to the jury.”
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Any error by the trial court in admitting K.’s statements to Ashley and Ron on the same topic would be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” (appellant not entitled to relief for error if “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); (Confrontation Clause violations subject to harmless error analysis) Therefore, we need not address whether those statements were
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
there is not a robbery.” , ( , ).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 154 “Attorneys, including prosecutors in criminal cases, are given wide latitude in their closing arguments to the jury.”
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
-77, -46 (1995) (murder of first victim consolidated with armed robbery and attempted murder of second victim where attempted murder occurred after the murder, and by the defendant’s own statements was to silence a witness who he believed had implicated him in the first murder); State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 418-20, -40 (1990) (murder and armed robbery of one victim consolidated under Rule 13.3(a)(2) and (3) with series of crimes perpetrated on victims two and three where temporal proximity exi
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
(helplessness and gratuitous violence); , (helplessness and relishing); , (helplessness and relishing); , (needless mutilation of victim); , (relishing, gratuitous violence, and helplessness); , (gratuitous violence and helplessness).
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Anderson 4 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2000
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999