Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schurz, 859 P.2d 156.

193 citing documents.

Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(recognizing that unfair prejudice “means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,” such as emotion (citing Fed.R.Evid.
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The jury did not find Herrera guilty of all charges, which suggests the prior acts had not so affected the jury that the guilty verdicts it did render were the result of “emotion, sympathy or horror.” , see also United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1387 (9th Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.2000); Garcia, , 28 P.3d at 334 .
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
Evidence may be considered unfairly prejudicial if has an “„undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis‟ such as emotion, sympathy or horror.” quoting Fed.
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
¶30 Kiles also argues that this Court’s holdings in State v. Moody (Moody II), -67, ¶¶ 188-96, -62 (2004), & 10 The legislature amended the statute in 1994 to eliminate intoxication as a defense “for any criminal act or requisite state of mind.” A.R.S.
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
P. 21.3(c) (grounds of objection to instruction must be stated distinctly); (general objection to instruction does not preserve specific).
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Unfair prejudice” under Rule 403 “ ‘means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an horror.’ ” , (citation omitted).
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
“This court occasionally will consider as a mitigating circumstance the disparity between the sentences of a defendant sentenced to death for a murder and that of an accomplice or codefendant who received a lesser sentence.” ( ).
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Additionally, if there is a finding of an especially cruel, heinous or depraved aggravator, “even unexplained disparity has little significance.”
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
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
For example, -49 , -16 (1985), after setting forth the statute in haec verba, our supreme court noted that the state was required to prove that before the act of killing, “a plan to murder was formed after the matter had been made a subject of deliberation and reflection.” , 55 n. 5, , 165 n. 5 (1993), our supreme court observed in passing that “[i]n addition to intention or knowledge, premeditation requires reflection.” Thus, notwithstanding the statute’s narrower definition of premeditation as
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Yauch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 10 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
See Henry, 189 Ariz. at 551 , 944 P.2d at 66
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Mott, 187 Ariz. at 545 , 931 P.2d at 1055
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
Mere disparity between two sentences is not significant, “but, rather, unexplained disparity.”
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997