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. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Trial judges ‘are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.’” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Jones, 197 Ariz. at 305 ¶ 37, 4 P.3d at 360
  • State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    "Trial judges 'are presumed to know the law and apply it in making their decisions.'" (quoting Walton, 497 U.S. at 653).
  • Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“[J]udges ‘are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.’”).
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
    See Medina, 193 Ariz. at 514 ¶ 36, 975 P.2d at 104 ( P.2d 1329 (1994), because in Richmond “there was no showing that the defendant knew or should have known the victim was dead after the first pass of the car”); (finding gratuitous violence when, after inflicting a wound to the head that was “unquestionably fatal,” the defendant walked around the counter and shot the victim two more times); State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 488-89, -18 (1996) (finding gratuitous violence whe
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶41 ‘Whether a defendant will be shackled is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
    (-34, -38 (1989)); Hansen, 156 Ariz. at 297, 751 P.2d at 957 ( ).
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
    at 482 ¶ 11, 73 P.3d at 613 (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 (1984); ).
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (“We hold that to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify.”); , cert.
  • State of Arizona v. Kenneth Dale Meinhardt Ariz. 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Kenneth Dale Meinhardt Ariz. 2003
    (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 653 (1990), ).
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • 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
    We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on such a motion unless we find a clear abuse of discretion, , and as we review such rulings we bear in mind that “the trial court is in the best position to determine whether an attorney’s remarks require a mistrial.” ¶ 37 , (-97
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    (death-qualifying a jury does not violate the right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community); , (excusing jurors who dis
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (holding autopsy photographs admissible when photographs did not include body parts irrelevant to the crime and excess blood was cleansed from wound and surrounding skin), cert.
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
    “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.’ ” , (quoting United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Blevins, 555 F.2d 1236, 1240 (5th Cir.1977)))
  • State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997