Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097.

199 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
When Champagne 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict.” n.2 (2017) ().
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(finding beyond a reasonable doubt that trial error was harmless where overwhelming evidence in the record supported the jury’s verdict).
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
See § 13-751(G); –18 (1994).
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that an error had no effect on the jury’s verdict where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt).
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McFadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McFadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
4 STATE v. MCFADDEN Decision of the Court contribute to or affect the verdict.” (citation omitted)), abrogation on other grounds recognized by McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798, 815 (9th Cir. 2015); (holding that, even assuming the trial court erred in precluding a defendant’s hearsay statements that he was drunk and did not intend to kill the victim, the error was harmless because the statements were “merely cumulative” to other trial testimony)
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(1994) (citation omitted).
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(no prejudice given “[o]verwhelming evidence in the record” of defendant’s knowledge and intent).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 21.3(c); ("[A] trial judge's failure to give an instruction sua sponte provides grounds for reversal only if such failure is fundamental error.").
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
And we view jury instructions as a whole to determine if they “adequately reflect the law.” ( ).
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
actor.” The trial court refused, relying on State v. Gallegos, which explained that 12 STATE V. MILLER Opinion of the Court although disparate sentences can be a mitigating circumstance, this factor “has no application when insufficient evidence exists to charge the other party with the alleged crime.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
Although these may constitute non-statutory mitigating circumstances, each juror has discretion to determine how much mitigating weight to give them, Nelson, 229 Ariz. at 191 ¶ 54, 273 P.3d at 643.
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(2) with a person who is less than eighteen years of age”), (approving without comment jury instruction that “crime of sexual conduct with a minor under age fifteen requires proof of the following two things: (1) The defendant knowingly penetrated the anus of another person with a part of his body; and (2) the other person had not reached her fi
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Gamez 258 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
6 ¶ 31 Other cases have implicitly found that the “knowing and intentional” mens rea applies only to the sexual act, , , the two cases relied upon by the trial court in reaching its decision.
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“Mere speculation that the jury was confused is insufficient to establish actual jury confusion.”
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
(“Failure to object at trial to an error or omission .
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See § 13-2104(A)(2); (no prejudice when “[o]verwhelming evidence in the record” of defendant’s guilt).
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
See State v. Gallegos (Gallegos I), -18, -14 (1994).
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009