Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cruz, 857 P.2d 1249.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
Followed State of Arizona v. Keyaira Porter 491 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2021
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Newell, 212 Ariz. at 400-01, ¶¶ 52, 54 (citing Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 240, ).
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bustamante 274 P.3d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
As an initial matter, , for the proposition that the prosecutor is required to provide objective evidence of his race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes.
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); The only other African-American on the jury panel who had completed the questionnaire was excused for hardship reasons.
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. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Lucas 18 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Eagle, 196 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 11, 992 P.2d at 1125 ; , , (refusing to examine “the continued validity of [ , and its requirement that explanations be objectively verifiable] in light of ...
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
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
Relying on our supreme court’s , defendant nevertheless argues that the state’s justification for striking D.A.
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
The court denied the motion, finding the explanations to be “ethical reasons for excusing those two jurors.” Defendant argues that the prosecutor’s explanations were not objectively verifiable, , and thus not race neutral.
State v. Henry 955 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Henry 955 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
that when “the state offers a facially neutral, but wholly subjective, reason for a preemptory strike, it must be coupled with some form of objective verification before it can overcome the prima facie showing of discrimination.” Id.
State v. Harris 911 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Harris 911 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The trial judge’s findings on the third step are findings of fact which, on review, “will be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Contrary to the defendant’s argument on appeal, , does not undermine the prosecutor’s justification of his strikes in this case.
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Cruz (II), , (“Batson challenges must be made before the end of the jury selection process or they will not be considered on appeal.”).
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
We have rejected this argument before: -401 , -1255 (1993); -59 , -76 (1992), cert.