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. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
    For such a conclusion to stand, we would have to find “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
    at 500 , 910 P.2d at 651
  • State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
    ¶ 6 PCR differs significantly from restriction fragment length polymorphis (RFLP), , 577 & n. 17, , 1180 & n. 17 (1993), -32 , -1200 (1997); -24 , -92 (1997)
  • State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
    For prejudice to be presumed, the defendant must show “that the publicity was so unfair, so prejudicial, and so pervasive that we cannot give any credibility to the jurors’ answers during voir dire affirming their ability to decide the case fairly.”
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
    §§ 13-1406, -1401, -1304, -1301; , -79 , -35 (1994).
  • State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Leon 945 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1997
    Even though his remarks may not have adhered to the typical contours of “vouching” because they did not refer to a particular witness, , (proseeutorial vouching occurs when state places prestige of government behind its witness), they were nonetheless improper.
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Shone 945 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
    In August 1993, the trial court required the parties to brief and argue the effect of this court’s , on the DNA hearing.
  • State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
    Even so, “we are not bound by the United States Supreme Court’s non-constitutional construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence when we construe the Arizona Rules of Evidence.”
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
    2525, 2527 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); , Ariz. Const, art. II, § 24.
  • Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    cert, denied, 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    (statement about a large group not overwhelmingly probative).
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “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.’ ” , cert.
  • State v. Gaines 937 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Boles 933 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Gaines 937 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Boles 933 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “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.’” , ( , ), cert.
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
  • 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. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    “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.” , cert.
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996