Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152.

901 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(error harmless only when we can say beyond reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to or affect verdict).
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Such error must be “„clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.‟” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
See State v. Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27, 41 ¶ 79, State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583, 596 ¶ 49, –05, –08 (1993) (“The fact that [the victim’s] hands were bound indicates that she was conscious and tied-up to prevent struggling.”).
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
(where error contributed to verdict, it cannot be deemed harmless).
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
the state asserts our review is de novo.
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
“This deferential standard of review applies because the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate ‘the atmosphere of the trial, the manner in which the objectionable statement was made, and the possible effect it had on the jury and the trial.’” ( ).
State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“[D]uring closing arguments counsel may summarize the evidence, make submittals to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and suggest ultimate conclusions.”).
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
(error harmless when court can say beyond reasonable doubt it did not affect verdict); Johnson, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 , 859 P.2d at 693 (applying harmless error analysis to alternatively charged predicates for felony murder).
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
at 157, ¶ 15, 181 P.3d at 204 ( ); (“Although many cases discuss the doctrine, very few cases have actually presumed prejudice due to a carnival or circus atmosphere at trial.”).
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
“Although irreconcilable conflict is not permitted, conflict between counsel and a criminal defendant is but one factor a court should consider in deciding whether to substitute counsel.”
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
(stating that we review determinations about whether evidence satisfies the requisite legal standard de novo); n.18, n.18 (1983) (noting that determinations made on undisputed facts present questions of “law or logic”).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶14 The analysis of pretrial publicity involves two inquiries: “(1) did the publicity pervade the court proceedings to the extent that prejudice can be presumed?; if not, then (2) did defendant show actual prejudice among members of the jury?” 566, 1169 (1993).
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
(holding that review for failure to exclude a juror is for 11 fundamental error in the absence of objection).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006