Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nunez, 806 P.2d 861.

75 citing documents.

State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Valenzuela Arella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
3 STATE v. VALENZUELA ARELLA Decision of the Court ¶10 "A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when 'no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.'" (); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(noting a defendant “waives any error if h[e]r case supplies evidence missing in the state’s case”).
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Collateral estoppel is an ingredient of the fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy,” but double-jeopardy is not implicated when separate sovereigns prosecute a defendant for the same conduct.
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Because Dixon presented a case after the court denied his Rule 20 motion, “we evaluate the motion based on the entire record, including any evidence [Dixon] supplied.”
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Achenbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Because Frazer presented a case after the Rule 20 motion was denied, “we evaluate the motion based on the entire record, including any evidence [Frazer] supplied.”
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
But, a “defendant who goes forward and presents a case waives any error,” and on appeal, we review the superior court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
State v. McFarland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McFarland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A defendant who presents a defense “waives any error if his case supplies evidence missing in the state’s case.”
State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sotelo-Nava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when ‘no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.’” ()); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
However, he "makes no separate argument based on the state constitutional provision; therefore, we do not separately discuss it.” n. 2 , , 863 n. 2 (1991).
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
“A judgment of acquittal is appropriate when ‘no substantial evidence [exists] to warrant a conviction.’” , , (alteration in Nunez).
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“A defendant who goes forward and presents a case waives any error if his case supplies the evidence missing in the state’s case.”).
State v. Dean 76 P.3d 429 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dean 76 P.3d 429 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
274 n. 2, , 863 n. 2 (1991).
State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. John Robert Esser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See State v. Nunez, 167 Ariz. 272, 279, (state’s burden of proof satisfied through defense evidence).
State v. Esser 70 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(state’s burden of proof satisfied through defense evidence).
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
The double jeopardy guarantee protects against, inter alia, a “second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal.”
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-76 , -65 (1991), for the proposition that, even before Dixon, Grady only applied to cases involving successive prosecutions and that only the Blockburger test applied to cases involving multiple punishments.
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995