Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Laird, 920 P.2d 769.

74 citing documents.

State v. Tapia-Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tapia-Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 50 (2022); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
("If a party wants a mistrial, it ordinarily must ask for one.").
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(stating that the brevity of inadmissible testimony was relevant to upholding denial of mistrial); ¶ 29 (App. 2013) (finding no reasonable probability that the jury was influenced by isolated testimony that was not mentioned again).
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
"To determine whether a mistrial is warranted, courts consider '(1) whether the jury has heard what it should not hear, and (2) the probability that what it heard influenced [it].'" ¶ 25 (2013) () (alterations in original).
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- 07 (1996) (concluding unsolicited statements referring to the defendant’s probation and detention status were such “a brief and tiny part of extensive trial testimony” that the superior court’s remedy of striking the answers and instructing the jury to disregard them was “adequate”); see also State v. Bailey, 16
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, (noting improper testimony was a “brief and tiny part of extensive trial testimony”).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 61 (2006) (citing Laird for the principle that “[a]bsent fundamental error, a defendant cannot complain if the court fails .
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(finding the evidence so strong, and the defense so incredible, that the court could say with certainty that the defendant was not denied a fair trial); Reffitt, 145 Ariz. at 462 (concluding that, even if the appellant had been entitled to a Willits instruction, he was not prejudiced because there existed
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶11 “If a party wants a mistrial, it ordinarily must ask for one.”
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Because mistrials raise issues of double jeopardy, a party 5 STATE v. CASTILLO Decision of the Court must ordinarily ask for a mistrial, and the superior court must find a “manifest necessity” to declare one, ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2017).
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Woods 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 of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Billups Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(noting that failure to properly renew motion to sever pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.4(c) results in fundamental error review on appeal of severance issues).
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 13.4(c) (explaining a defendant must renew a motion to sever offenses “during trial at or before the close of the evidence” or “[s]everance is waived”); ¶ 54 (2016) ().
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 13.4(c); ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (Waiver provision of Rule 13.4(c) "prevents a defendant from strategically refraining from renewing his motion, allowing a joint trial to proceed, then, if he is dissatisfied with the final outcome, arguing on appeal that severance was necessar
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dugan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because Dugan did not renew his pretrial severance motion during trial, we review only for fundamental error.1
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See id.; (defendant waived issue by failing to renew motion to sever count).
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015