Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 944 P.2d 1204.

176 citing documents.

State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, , (applying a harmless error analysis to the trial court's improper denial of a severance under Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
denied, 531 U.S. 1165 (2001) (citing Connelly); (same).
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
State v. Jones 49 P.3d 273 Ariz. 2002
515, 522 (1986) (“[C]oercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”)
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
See id.; , (holding “ ‘convictions entered prior to a sentencing hearing may ...
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(assessing on review whether evidence adduced at trial satisfied the clear-and-convincing test); Terrazas, 189 Ariz. at 584 , 944 P.2d at 1198 (assessing whether evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); cf. State v.
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997