Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731.

74 citing documents.

Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jamie Clem v. Pinal County, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(“When a trial court becomes aware of possible juror misconduct, it should ‘conduct whatever investigation it deems warranted.’” ()).
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
“When a trial court becomes aware of possible juror misconduct, it should ‘conduct whatever investigation it deems warranted.’” Cota, 229 Ariz. at 150 ¶ 74 ().
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-59 (1991) (appellate court will not engage in fundamental-error review of superior court's failure to suppress testimony by witness whose plea agreement required him to testify when defendant raised issue for first time on 5 STATE v. MASON
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
DISCUSSION ¶8 Ramirez, having knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appellate counsel, (citing Faretta, 422 Ariz. at 834-36), filed a largely incoherent opening brief 2 The trial court also revoked Ramirez’s probation and sentenced him to a consecutive term of 2.5 years’ imprisonment with credit for 158 days of presentence incarceration.
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
Recognizing and honoring that right, this Court has upheld a capital defendant’s waiver of counsel even when, as here, the defendant “presented no mitigating evidence.” -47, 48, 63, -38, 739, 754 (1991).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The trial court is in the best position “to assess whether prospective jurors should be allowed to sit,” ¶ 13 (App. 2002), because “the trial judge has the opportunity to observe the juror’s demeanor and the tenor of his or her answers first hand.”
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Specifically, Stuart asserts that Cynthia “impermissibly testified concerning [his] ‘bad temperament’ near the time of the murder ostensibly to show [his] state of mind.” ¶9 To preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, “[a] party must make a specific and timely objection at trial.” see generally Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Arizona does not recognize a right to hybrid representation.”); (“[T]here is no constitutional right to hybrid representation under either the federal or our state constitution.”).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
¶74 When a trial court becomes aware of possible juror misconduct, it should “conduct whatever investigation it deems warranted.”
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20 , , (“‘Opposing counsel must timely object to any erroneous or improper statements made during closing argument or waive his right to the objection, except for fundamental error.’ ”), , , 995
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
176 Ariz. at 74, 859 P.2d at 184 (quoting Yvette A. Beeman, Note, Accomplice Testimony Under Contingent Plea Agreements, 72 Cornell L. Rev. 800, 824 (1987)); (acknowledging the ethical concerns inherent in consistency agreements).
State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Rivera 86 P.3d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
While the trial court certainly would have been justified in striking the juror for violating its admonitions, , the refusal to remove her was not an abuse of discretion.
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
63 n. 11, , 754 n. 11 (1991).
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. *521 40, 64, cert.
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The state argues that “a party may not object on appeal to the admission of evidence when the party itself introduced the evidence or opened the door to its admission,” -52 , -43 (1991).
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993