Cited by

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

901 citing documents.

State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
For error to be harmless, and therefore not prejudicial, we must be able to say “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” , cert.
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“Within reason, a [court] does not display bias or cause prejudice when acting sua sponte to control the courtroom and the trial.” , cert.
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
834 , 88 L.Ed.2d 805 (1986); the right to a speedy trial, e.g. State v. Schaaf , and the right to be present during voir dire, , but under Montgomery may not waive the right to appeal.
Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); , cert.
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
Absent “structural defects,” which are not subject to harmless error analysis, an error is harmless “if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
State v. Clark 887 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Clark 887 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
While Clark’s appeal was pending, , cert.
State v. Bloom 516 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
we recently held that the techniques and standards that Cellmark uses to declare a DNA “match” are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and comply with Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Fodor 880 P.2d 662 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993