Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cornell, 878 P.2d 1352.

151 citing documents.

State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 152 , this court stated that the “experienced prosecutor should have known better than to make such remarks, and his actions seem almost calculated to bring prejudicial and irrelevant matters before the jury.
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1461 (1938) (“[C]ourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 22 , ( , ).
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols 36 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols 36 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
1087, 1093 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53, 62 (1985); , , (“So long as the law permits capital sentencing, Arizona’s justice system must provide adequate resources to enable indigents to defend themselves in a reasonable way.”).
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
(“A trial court has broad discretion in managing the conduct of a trial, and has a duty to properly exercise that discretion.”).
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. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
1880, 1884 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*557 at 412 , 694 P.2d at 242 ; 1 , (“(I)t is uniformly held that all motions for (pro per status) made after jury selection has begun are untimely____”).
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
and “[[Information regarding the consequences of a verdict is irrelevant to the jury’s task.” , (quoting Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 ,-, 114 S.Ct.
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
We will *515 find fundamental error only “when it goes to the foundation of the case, takes from a defendant a right essential to the defense, or is of such magnitude that it cannot be said it is possible for the defendant to have had a fair trial.”
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
-29 , -67 (1994); , , cert.
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
331 n. 10, , 1369 n. 10 (1994).
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
(“prosecutor must not make prejudicial insinuations without being prepared to prove them”).
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by