Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Grannis, 900 P.2d 1.

59 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
27 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Opinion of the Court n.1 (1995) (circumstantial evidence that victim visited ATM to withdraw $200 was insufficient evidence to show total contents of stolen wallet worth over $1,500).
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
See, -57 (Ariz. 1995) (trial court abused discretion in failing to preclude pornographic homosexual photographs pursuant to Rule 403 calculus).
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
r defendant”; “evidence admitted against one defendant has a harmful ‘rub-off effect’ on the other defendant”; “there is a significant disparity in the amount of evidence introduced against each of the two defendants”; “co-defendants present defenses that are so antagonistic that they are mutually exclusive”; or “the conduct of one defendant’s defense harms the other defendant.” (citations omitted), ¶ 12 (2010).
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ed against one defendant is facially incriminating to the other defendant; (2) evidence admitted against one defendant has a harmful ‘rub-off effect’ on the other defendant; (3) there is a significant disparity in the amount of evidence introduced against each of the two defendants; or (4) co-defendants present defenses that are so antagonistic that they are mutually exclusive.” (citations omitted).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
(stating that “[u]nder A.R.S.
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶40 In arguing the adult pornography was prejudicial other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b)
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Severance on such a basis is rare and is required only if the jury is unable to “keep separate the evidence that is relevant to each defendant and render a fair and impartial verdict as to him.” ().
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lawson, 144 Ariz. at 556, 30 698 P.2d at 1275; P.3d 240 (2010).
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
See, Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404, 783 P.2d at 1196
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(finding reversible error in trial court’s admission of inflammatory evidence pursuant to Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid.); , (reversing convictions based on trial court’s failure to grant a severance under state standards); State v. Rodrig
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See, , Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404 , 783 P.2d at 1196 (self-defense instruction will be given only if defendant can demonstrate “he acted solely because of [the reasonable] belief [of immediate physical danger]”).
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-57, -6 (1995), the Arizona Supreme Court found the erroneous admission of pornographic photographs sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversing the first-degree murder convictions of two defendants, one of whom the jury learned “had collected” the pornography, the other of whom might have been onl
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
The State points out that Barraza’s argument on appeal — , — is not the argument Barraza made to the trial court that additional language should have been inserted telling the jury that “forcible rape is deadly physical force.” Therefore, the State argues that Barraza has both abandoned the argument she made in the trial court, see State v. Nirschel, 155 A
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
The Arizona Supreme Court rejected a
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
P. 31.17(d); , 57 n. 1, , 6 n. 1 (1995); -5 , -14 (1988).
State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Distinguished State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Similarly, appellant’s , is misplaced because it, too, is distinguishable.
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998