Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 842 P.2d 1287.

26 citing documents.

State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶19 “Preliminary instructions prepare a jury for trial and constitute an orientation by which the jury is made to understand its duties and responsibilities.”
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
¶97 Smith’s reliance on State v. (Carl D.) Johnson, is misplaced.
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–76 (1992) (emphasis omitted) ().
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789 (1979); –32 (1989)
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-96, -74 (1995) (requiring the court to instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt after the close of evidence).
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
See, e.g., Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 (1984) (holding that improper burden shifting to a defendant constitutes fundamental error); , (same).
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶3 our supreme court held that a trial court’s failure to reinstruct the jury at the end of trial on the state’s burden of proof “is an error which can be waived.” But, because of an erroneous, burden-shifting instruction the trial court had also given, the failure to reinstruct in Jo
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Our supreme court has made it clear that trial judges are required to instruct “juries on basic legal principles, including burden of proof and reasonable doubt, following the evidence and before the commencement of deliberations.” , , 859 *
State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
at a minimum, we believe it is the better practice for the trial court to reinstruct the jury on the elements of the charge at the close of all the evidence, either before or after argument.
State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
our supreme court stated that, even if the jury were instructed on reasonable doubt at the beginning of the case, that instruction must be repeated “following the evidence and before the commencement of deliberations.” 173 Ariz. at 276, 842 P.2d at 1289.
State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
State v. Portillo 898 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1995
-76 , -89 (1992) (reversing conviction because trial court did not orally reinstruct jury on reasonable doubt after closing arguments); , -95 , -05 (1984).
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
The appellate courts of this state have so held in five cases: , State v. Jackson (Robert), , -95 , -05 (1984); State v. Jackson (Richard), , , (Ap
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Still, because “common sense and experience tell us that jurors give special credence to the pronouncements of judges,” , every reasonable precaution must be taken to avoid instructions that might cause jurors to view the evidence “in accordance with what they believe to be the court’s judgment as to its weight rather than their own.” , 272 P. 647, 651