Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731.
- State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
-
State v. Michael Apelt
861 P.2d 634
Ariz. 1993
-63 , -54 (1992) (court’s sua sponte consideration of the § 703(F)(8) aggravating circumstance at the sentencing hearing was not a denial of due process given defendant’s failure to request a continuance and the absence of prejudice), cert.
- State v. Fisher 859 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1993
-
State v. Fisher
859 P.2d 179
Ariz. 1993
Also, , again without reaching the merits, we reiterated the inherent “ethical problems” with consistency provisions.
- State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Church 854 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Church
854 P.2d 137
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“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.” , cert.
- State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Anderson 850 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Anderson
850 P.2d 669
Ariz. 1993
-59 , -50 (1991), we stated that: It is ...
- State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Woody 845 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Woody 845 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992