Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lavers, 814 P.2d 333.

269 citing documents.

Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
901(a) (stating that the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied when the proponent produces evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item in question is what its proponent claims); , (discussing Rule 901(a), A’iz.
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(where record incomplete, we assume any evidence not available on appeal supports trial court‟s actions).
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Overruled State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(1991) (admission of authentication testimony not 5 conclusive proof of authenticity, which is factual question for jury); (same).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
I. Mental Anguish ¶27 “Mental anguish includes the victim’s uncertainty as to her ultimate fate.”
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(before engaging in fundamental error analysis, we must first find error).
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In ruling on authentication, the superior court “does not determine whether the evidence is authentic, but only whether evidence exists from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it is authentic.”
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. *460 376, 385
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
§ 13-1105 permits a defendant to be charged with either knowing or intentional murder, and that knowing alone could be charged “[e]ven if the State charged knowingly rather than intentionally to preclude the introduction of evidence of defendant’s intoxication.”
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶¶ 19, 23; see also State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 385
State of Arizona v. Timothy Christopher Haight-Gyuro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Timothy Christopher Haight-Gyuro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
The [court] does not determine whether the evidence is authentic, but only whether evidence exists from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it is authentic.”
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
the nature of that [homicide] and the identity of its victim.” -94, -51 (1991) (alterations in original) (citations omitted); see Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 128, 140 P.3d at 926 (requiring the murders be “part of a continuous course of criminal conduct”).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
901(a), 17A A.R.S.; see also State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 386
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶¶ 19, 23; , (“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, ...
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
This court “examine[s] the entire murder transaction and not simply the final act that killed the victim.”
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶13 “Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.” see also Henderson, 115 P.3d at 608.
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
The aggravator thus requires multiple homicides committed in a “continuous course of criminal conduct,” such that the killings have a “temporal, spatial, and motivational relationship[ ].” , ( , ).
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
¶ 9, (finding a temporal relationship when undisputed evidence showed that the murders occurred in a “short, uninterrupted span of time”); (finding a temporal relationship existed where “the two murders were separated by just minutes”).
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002