Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ramirez, 871 P.2d 237.

233 citing documents.

State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“[T]he trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.”).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
See Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 141-42 ¶ 119, 140 P.3d at 924-25 (strangulation); (stabbing).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
See, e.g., State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. - 18 - 116, 126
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
("[T]he trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.").
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Saiz, 3 Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Robert William Harlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert William Harlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“The decision to further instruct a jury [after it has retired to deliberate] on a matter .
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
-27, -48 (1994) (“[W]hen a jury asks a judge about a matter on which it has received adequate instruction, the judge may in his or her discretion refuse to answer, or may refer the jury to the earlier instruction.”) (citation omitted).
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“‘[T]he trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.’”)
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
If a defendant objects to a further jury instruction, we review the trial judge’s decision for an abuse of discretion, but reversible error occurs if a judge improperly coerces a verdict
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
This claim has been rejected by State v. 35 Gulbrandson
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 21 Furthermore, “ ‘[w]hen a jury asks a judge about a matter on which it has received adequate instruction, the judge may in his or her discretion refuse to answer, or may refer the jury to the earlier instruction.’”
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The ‘open courts’ provision essentially commands public judicial proceedings.”
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. McIntosh 146 P.3d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(“[A]bsent some evidence to the contrary, we presume that the jury read and followed the relevant instruction.”).
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Londo 158 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
2626 ; , (applying the public safety exception to admit a statement made in response to police questions aimed at determining what they would encounter when they proceeded further into apartment, past a body on the floor of blood-spattered room).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
Mental anguish is established if the victim “experienced significant uncertainty as to her ultimate fate,” Van Adams, 194 Ariz. at 421 ¶ 44, 984 P.2d at 29 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), or if the victim was aware of a loved one’s suffering, State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 129
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006