Cited by

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

901 citing documents.

State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
We still must determine whether “we can say beyond a reasonable doubt, that *57 the error did not contribute to or affect the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
see also State v. Hall, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
“The trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility and accuracy, as well as draw inferences, weigh, and balance.” , , (“When mitigating evidence is conflicting and involves considerations of credibility, we give great deference to the trial court’s conclusions.”).
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
We also echo the reminder of our supreme court that "the same error may be fundamental in one case but not in another.”
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
See Fulminante, 193 Ariz. at 500 , 975 P.2d at 90 ; *581 Wood, 180 Ariz. at 63 , 881 P.2d at 1168
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Id.; , (stating that when construing a rule that the supreme court has amended, we must rely on the text of the rule as well as the supreme court’s intent in amending the rule).
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Morales 10 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(“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 receive
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
(rejecting the defendant’s claim that statements concerning victim’s rights in the prosecutor’s closing arguments did not constitute fundamental error because, coupled with the weight of the evidence against the defendant, he was not denied a fair trial).
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
leavpng] many questions unanswered.”
State v. Garcia 3 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Garcia 3 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Second, the profiles are analyzed to determine whether any of the samples match____ Finally, the significance of the match is articulated, usually by calculating the probability of a random match.” , ( , ).
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
(concluding that “the principles and theory underlying DNA testing ...
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Cutright 2 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Each of these acts when committed by a criminal suspect has been adjudged to manifest a suspect’s consciousness of guilt, which in turn “gives rise to an inference of actual guilt.” , (flight and concealment of self); , (flight); , (flight and concealment of evidence).
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); *350
State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
( , (citations omitted)).
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998