Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Huerta, 855 P.2d 776.

43 citing documents.

State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 307-17; 196-97, 201, ¶¶ 6, 21, 39-40 (2003) ().
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In doing so, , holding that such error was structural.
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Hickman, P.2d 776 (1993), and held a defendant’s curative use of a peremptory strike to remove a prospective juror who should have been stricken for cause is subject to harmless error review.
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
b. State v. Hickman ¶34 Cruz argues that we should overrule State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 267, 781 (1993), that an erroneous failure to excuse a juror for cause always constitutes reversible error, regardless of prejudice.
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
-67, -81 (1993), to support this argument.
State v. Ibanez 72 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ibanez 72 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ORDER HALL, J. ¶ 1 , , we reversed defendant’s convictions for aggravated DUI and remanded for a new trial.
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 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
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 13 , however, our supreme court characterized peremptory challenges as a substantial right that is “clearly impinged” when a trial court erroneously denies a for-cause challenge.
State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
but see United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 , 120 S.Ct.
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
(holding that reversal is required if the court abused its discretion by failing to strike a juror for cause, and the defendant is required to use a peremptory strike to remove the challenged juror), to claim he was denied a substantial right because he had to exhaust one of his perempt
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
(“The prejudice of having one less peremptory challenge than the other side is enough to mandate reversal.”).
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ebert 964 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The defendant’s , is unpersuasive.
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
221 P. 232, 233 (1923), overruled on other grounds
State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
State v. Thornton 929 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1996
If the information Nucci obtained had been material and disputed, , would have required a reversal even though Nucci did not serve as a juror.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
Under this court’s , *609 (1993), reversal is required if the court abused its discretion by failing to strike a juror for cause, and the defendant is required to use a peremptory strike to remove the juror.
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 893 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
For example, we have found it necessary to strike jurors who believed police officers to be more credible than others, , who believed that the charge alone showed the defendant’s guilt, , rev'd on other grounds, , and, in a case involving alcohol, who expressed bias against those who drink
State v. Bingham 859 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Bingham 859 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
rev’g , the court held that the denial of a challenge for cause was reversible error.
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993