DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

182 citing documents.

  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
    (finding that the evidence did not demonstrate violence beyond that necessary to kill when the record did not establish the time between the four gunshot wounds or the order in which the shots were fired); (finding the
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
    at 161-62 ¶ 106, 42 P.3d at 592-93 ; , (finding insufficient evidence of gratuitous violence when victim was hit four times by nine gunshots and record did not indicate time between gunshots or order in which they were fired); , (finding gratuitous violence n
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
    (finding that defendant’s descriptions of his involvement in different murders satisfied the clear and convincing standard for admissibility of the murders under Rule 404(b)).
  • 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