Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dickens, 926 P.2d 468.

135 citing documents.

State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
We previously said that “evidence is ‘intrinsic’ when [1] evidence of the other act and evidence of the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined’ or [2] both acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or [3] the other acts were ‘necessary preliminariesʼ to the crime charged.” ¶ 18, ( n.7, n.7 (1996)); see Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. at 248 ¶ 56, 25 P.3d at 736 (also quoting Dickens).
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
¶50 Garcia first argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider his failure to report the crime in determining if he was a “major participant.” Although previous cases may have suggested otherwise, (noting failure to contact authorities among factors supporting finding 23 of major participation), we agree that juries should not be instructed to consider this factor with regard to major participation.
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 17 Likewise, McKenna made no offer of proof of what actual evidence he would have presented about whether J. was a drug dealer, the amount of cocaine in J.’s body, and what effects such an amount might have had on J. See, -14 , -81 (1996) (ruling affirmed based on “sparse record” because defendant made no specific offer of proof); -82 , -28 (1989) 7 (affirming preclusion of evidence where defendant, failed to make offer of proof “beyond bare speculation” about ho
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 2352(c) (McNaughton rev. 1961).
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(erroneous admission of hearsay harmless where "cumulative to much other evidence”).
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
ed the evidence of adult pornography on grounds that it was “inextricably intertwined” with other relevant evidence in the case.5 See State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, ¶ 56, (other-act evidence not subject to preclusion under Rule 404(b) when evidence of other act is intrinsic to the charged crime or the two are “‘inextricably intertwined’”), n.7, n.7 (1996).
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, -8, 27 , -75, 494 (1996) (affirming felony murder convictions of defendant who waited across the highway in a vehicle while another person robbed the victims at gunpoint and then killed them); 394 , 279 (1982) (affirming felony murder conviction
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
If the evidence is relevant to prove a proper purpose, the trial court “must determine if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
On this issue, we have stated that “[e]ven if a defendant does not contest certain issues, photographs are still admissible if relevant because the burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
“‘Other act’ evidence is ‘intrinsic’ when [1] evidence of the other act and evidence of the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined’ or [2] both acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or [3] the other acts were ‘necessary preliminaries’ to the crime charged.” -19 n.7, -86 n.7 (1996) (quoting United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996)).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
As Ellison recognizes, however, this court usually does not subscribe to the cumulative error doctrine, and, in any event, none of the above claims independently prove prejudicial error.11 E. Mistrial based on testimony regarding Ellison’s gun ¶60 At trial, Detective Auld testified that police searched Webster-Hauver’s house, in part, to find “the
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Ades, Elijah M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Rather, to constitute misconduct, the juror must have “conceal[ed] facts pertaining to his qualifications or bias on proper inquiry during voir dire.” Board of Trustees v. McEwen, 6 Ariz. App. 148
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Lashonda M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 107 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Rather, to constitute misconduct, the juror must have “concealed] facts pertaining to his qualifications or bias on proper inquiry during voir dire.” , Board of Trustees v. McEwen, 6 Ariz.App.
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Cabanas-Salgado 92 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(1993); -86 , -09 (1984).
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(lesser-included offense instruction not required if defendant is either guilty of greater offense or not at all); Lara; Marshall.
State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Patterson 56 P.3d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
State v. Finch 46 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2002
Although a felony murder conviction can be a mitigating factor, any mitigation will be offset by a defendant’s “major participation in the planning and execution of the crime.” State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 25
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
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 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
Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the prospective juror “could not reasonably render a fair or impartial verdict.”
Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols 36 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001