DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

901 citing documents.

  • State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
  • Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
  • Maretick v. Jarrett 62 P.3d 120 Ariz. 2003
    We must be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s judgment.” (internal citations and quotation omitted).
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    “Fundamental error is ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’”
  • State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    547, ¶6, P.2d 1152 (1993).
  • State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
    (While a prosecutor “may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
    State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 593
  • State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
    But error, “be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • 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
    On independent review, we accord great deference to the trial court’s conclusions because the “trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility and accuracy, as well as draw inferences, weigh, and balance.” Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 149 , 14 P.3d at 1019 ¶ 97 (internal quotations omitted) ( , ).
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    On independent review, we accord great deference to the trial court’s conclusions because the “trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility and accuracy, as well as draw inferences, weigh, and balance.” Hoskins, 199 Ariz. at 149, 14 P.3d at 1019 ¶97 (internal quotations omitted) ( ).
  • 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
    Even if misconduct occurs, it “is harmless if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” , 920 P.2d *542 290, 307 (1996) ( 600 , 1203 (1993)).
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    To be fundamental error, “[an] error ‘must be clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial.’” , ( , ).
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    d 1224, 1232-36 (1984) (“voiceprint” evidence); State v. Superior Court (Blake), -80 , -82 (1986) (horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); -42 , -29 (1988) (phosphoglucomutase (PGM) blood grouping); -87 , -28 (1990) (silica gel blood alcohol test); -82 , -85 (1993) (DNA evidence).
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ¶41 “Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Young v. Johnson 31 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    See State v. Bible , (trial judges must avoid any *69 “appearance of partiality”).
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
    Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it “did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” , (citation omitted).
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (confirming that Frye remains the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in Arizona); ¶ 31 , (same).
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
    Presumed Prejudice ¶ 15 To obtain a change of venue, a defendant must show “pretrial publicity so outrageous that it promises to turn the trial into a mockery of justice or a mere formality.”
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001