DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 944 P.2d 1222.

151 citing documents.

  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We will not reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct unless the conduct is “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” ().
  • State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Buttita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Corwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Corwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Thus, we presume that the court understood the law in denying the motion for a new trial.3 (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “[A] defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” ¶ 26 (1998) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)); (stating that, to justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial’” (citations omitted)).
  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Griffet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    In any event, Cryer chose not to testify at trial and therefore “waive[d] his right to challenge the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    5 STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court Reversal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct requires that the conduct be “so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶6 Because the fact finder, the jury, is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses after direct and cross-examination, ¶ 22, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal
  • State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Jacobs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Misconduct can occur if a prosecutor makes statements that call a jury’s attention to matters it “was not justified in considering in determining its verdict[.]”
  • State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Nowakowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Trial judges are presumed to know the law and apply it in making their decisions.” (internal quotes omitted).
  • State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    atmosphere of the trial.’” (quoting United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. 7 STATE v. GIRON Decision of the Court Blevins, 555 F.2d 1236, 1240 (5th Cir. 1977))
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    To justify reversal, the misconduct “must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” (citation omitted).