Cited by

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

324 citing documents.

State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(probative value of evidence is not reduced because it is circumstantial).
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(detective's experience sufficient to qualify him as expert under Rule 702).
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
608(b); (explaining a trial court has substantial discretion to allow cross-examination of a witness about specific acts of misconduct, but the utility of the evidence must be weighed against the possibility of prejudice under Rule 403)
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
“When a defendant challenges a denial of severance on appeal, he ‘must demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.’” (quoting State v. (Robert C.) Cruz, ); see also Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567 ¶¶ 19–20, 115 P.3d at 607 20 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court (def
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the denial of a severance motion for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse based on this issue only if the defendant shows “compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to protect.” ().
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(appellate court reviews decision to preclude impeachment evidence using specific instances of conduct for an abuse of discretion).
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To obtain review of a denial of redetermination of probable cause, a defendant must seek relief before trial by special action.”
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 To further the interest of judicial economy, “joint trials are the rule rather than the exception.”
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Contreras is not entitled to a Willits instruction “merely because a more exhaustive investigation could have been made.” 8 STATE v. CONTRERAS Decision of the Court (noting “failure to pursue every lead or gather every conceivable bit of physical evidence” does not requir
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(defendant is not entitled to a Willits instruction “merely because a more exhaustive investigation could have been made.”); (“failure to pursue every lead or gather every conceivable bit of physical evidence” does n
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nevertheless, even “[d]estruction or nonretention of evidence does not automatically entitle a defendant to a Willits instruction.”
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Willits, 96 Ariz. at 191; (“A Willits instruction is appropriate when the State destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”) ¶13 The jury heard evidence that I.J.
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A trial court’s denial of a mistrial will be reversed only if it is “palpably improper and clearly injurious.” ( ).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
("The probative value of evidence is not reduced because it is circumstantial."); (conviction may be based only on circumstantial evidence).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(finding no prejudice where jury learned defendants were arrested and spent time in custody before trial).
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-40, ¶ 31, -35 (2004) ( ).