Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Eastlack, 883 P.2d 999.

102 citing documents.

State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
at 461-62; -51, -07 (1994) (finding the statement “I think I better talk to a lawyer first” was an equivocal request for an attorney).
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
A ¶22 When reviewing a trial court’s determination on the admissibility of a defendant’s statements, this Court must determine whether there has been clear and manifest error.6 ¶ 8, ( ).
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶10 the state suggests the delinquency petition was amended automatically, without a formal request by the state or an express ruling by the court, and that the amendment was constitutionally permissible because
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶25 APAAC maintains that Villalpando’s
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
Behrens v. O'Melia 78 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Behrens v. O'Melia 78 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
2 -53 , -09 (1994) (A trial court’s ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be disturbed on appeal absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion.).
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
this instruction garnered a caution, but withstood scrutiny by this court, -94 , -90 (1989) (cautioning against giving a jury instruction that employs the “no appreciable space of time” and “instantaneous as successive thoughts” language, yet concluding that any error in the instruction was not reversible error); , (same).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
¶ 52 , the defendant complained of inadequate notice that kidnapping would be used as a predicate felony.
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
at 294 , 778 P.2d at 1190
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
(no finding of actual prejudice, even though ten jurors had prior knowledge of case, when all jurors expressed the ability to determine guilt from evidence presented at trial); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 566 , 858 P.2d at 1169 (“[T]he relevant inquiry is the effect of publicity on a juror’s o
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
therefore did not indicate that he was unable or unwilling to assess the evidence presented at trial fairly and impartially, see, , and did not demonstrate bias for or against either party or any witness, see, -56 , -12 (1994).
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
Our focus is “not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” , (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
¶7 Hence, permissible amendments include those that change a charge of theft by control of property valued at $1,000 or greater to a more specific charge of theft of a motor vehicle, , correct one digit of a four-digit address of a burglarized place, , correct a date, Bruce; , correct a duplicitous indictment to allege only one offense, State v. O’Haire, , 7
State v. Herbert 601 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(no constitutional requirement of consistent verdicts) (citations omitted).
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Knorr 921 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Knorr 921 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rule 23.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , cert.
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
2350, 2355 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); -50 , -06 (1994), cert.
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995