Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Walden, 905 P.2d 974.

76 citing documents.

State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
ng defendant’s claim that he did not validly waive his Miranda rights because he was unaware that he would be questioned about a homicide; “[W]e hold that a suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his [Miranda rights].”); (rejecting defendant’s challenge to voluntariness of his waiver when defendant waived Miranda rights and answered questions af
State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-69 (1982); (concluding evidence introduced on redirect examination of victim was within the scope of cross-examination, given the defendant’s cross-examination attack on purported inconsistencies in the victim’s direct testimony), State v. Henry
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
f jury questionnaires for abuse of discretion," State v. Naranjo , , 241 ¶ 24, , 406 (2014), and "will not disturb the trial court's selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen," State v. Moody , , 451 ¶ 93, , 1146 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Walden , , 607, , 986 (1995) ).
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Moreover, even if the juror should not have been excused, we would not reverse Parker’s conviction “unless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury.” (error in striking juror for cause does not require reversal absent showing that a fair and impartial jury was not secured)
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“[a]rgument must be in the body of the brief,” and text in appendix stricken), P.2d 762 (1996); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, (argument not within body of brief procedurally defaulted).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
Cf. State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 618, (finding signs of a struggle when victim’s hands were intertwined in the electrical cord used to strangle her and blood was sprayed around the room), State v
In Re Lazcano 222 P.3d 896 Ariz. 2010
In Re Lazcano 222 P.3d 896 Ariz. 2010
-16, -95 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
For example, -18, -97 (1995), the court acknowledged that Arizona’s statutory definitions of sexual assault and kidnapping did not necessarily establish crimes of violence because both can be committed using deceit rather than force.
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prince 61 P.3d 450 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“We will not disturb the trial court’s selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.” , (internal quotations omitted) ( , ), -08 , -68 (1996).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“We will not disturb the trial court's selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen.” (internal quotations omitted) 17 ( ), -08, -68 (1996).
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Followed State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
disapproved on other grounds, , .
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
State v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
-14 , -93 (1995), -08 , -68 (1996).
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
Although Jones argued at trial that the F.l factor was not met because all six of the murders occurred in a , no longer apply, the trial court correctly determined that the F.l factor had been met ¶ 62 , we held that three different murders in the same killing spree satisfied the F.l factor.
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
See, , -03 , -73 (1984) (concluding that it was not abuse for the trial court to refuse to excuse the challenged juror for cause because he assured the court that he could render an impartial verdict).
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
616 & n. 10, , 995 & n. 10 (1995).
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
z. 471, 488-89 , -18 (1996); numerous gunshot wounds to the head from different weapons, , continued bludgeoning with a tire jack, , and bruises, scraping or cutting injuries, a wound to the head, deep slashes to the throat, and strangulation
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
44 & n. 3, , 800 & n. 3 (1997); State v. McKinney, 185 Ariz. at 583 , 917 P.2d at 1230 .
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
(citations omitted); -16 , -95 (1995) (holding that for purposes of A.R.S.