Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gulbrandson, 906 P.2d 579.

249 citing documents.

State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(noting the trial court is not required to have a defendant “make an on-the- record waiver of the right to testify”).
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Armed Forces v. Namvar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
.”); (refusing to reach the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony because defendant failed to properly preserve the issue by making an offer of proof).
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[A] defendant must make his desire to testify known at trial and cannot allege this desire as an afterthought.”
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stratton v. Weaver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stratton v. Weaver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.”); (declining to consider an evidentiary issue on appeal because the defendant made no offer of proof in the trial court).
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
The jurors could have concluded that VanWinkle acted with premeditation upon watching his prolonged, brutal attack, during which he alternated between beating, strangling, and jumping up and down on the victim, he took breaks, (finding “protracted, brutal, and .
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010