Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Murray, 906 P.2d 542.

324 citing documents.

State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[c]ertainly the jurors were aware that defendants were arrested and had spent some time in custody prior to trial .
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“When a defendant concurrently has self-representation and representation by counsel, hybrid representation results.” ().
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
see also State v. Murray , , 33, , 566 (1995) ; State v. Davis , , ¶ 35
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(defendant is not entitled to a Willits instruction “merely because a more exhaustive investigation could have been made”); (“We do not believe that a failure to pursue every lead or gather every conceivable bit of physical evidence will require a Willits
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
Whitaker, 112 Ariz. at 542.
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Murray , , 30, , 563 (1995) ; see Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nevertheless, “[d]estruction or nonretention of evidence does not automatically entitle a defendant to a Willits instruction.”
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Moreover, “[t]he probative value of evidence is not reduced because it is circumstantial.” ().
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To establish an abuse of discretion, a defendant must show that he would be prejudiced absent severance—a “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” (citations and internal quotations omitted).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
ch as an interview video, jail calls, or other similar material that shows a defendant has been in custody at some point does not implicate the same concerns as forcing a defendant, against his will, to wear jail clothing at trial because such evidence is not a “constant reminder of the accused’s condition” during the trial that “furthers no essential state policy.” Id.; (holding that knowledge by jury that defendants spent some time in custody prior to trial was not prejudicial and did “not den
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Dominguez v. Foster 413 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶13 Because “joint trials are the rule rather than the exception,” when defendants are properly joined under Rule 13.3(b), severance is required only if “necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of any defendant.” Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tull Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
conduct and from the evidence which applies to that Defendant, as if that Defendant were being tried alone.” Presuming the jurors followed these instructions, as we must, Tull fails to establish the requisite prejudice for finding reversible error in the court’s decisions to use dual juries and to permit the introduction of Mucthison’s and Braithwaite’s (finding no prejudice in light of a similar instruction because “[w]ith such an instruction, the jury is presumed to have considered the evidenc
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stelljes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because “joint trials are the rule rather than the exception,” when defendants are properly joined under Rule 13.3(b), severance is required only if “necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of any defendant[.]” Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that because “[t]here is more than one way in which footprints can be preserved and analyzed,” a detective’s failure to follow FBI procedures went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 Moreover, Coleman cannot show “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect,” (), where, as here, “the trial court instructed the jury to consider each count separately and explained that the State bore the burden to ‘prove each element of each charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt,’” Miller, 234 Ariz. at 38, ¶ 18 (quoting Hausner, 23