Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thornton, 929 P.2d 676.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Distinguished State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 113 (2019) (juror whose “opinion is unqualified or fixed” (cleaned up)); (jurors possessing “personal knowledge of a material, disputed aspect of the case” or “knowledge that is unique to the case”).
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“If confronted with a challenge for cause in which the facts do not clearly establish whether a prospective juror should be removed, the better practice will be to resolve doubt in favor of disqualification.”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
A witness in the action is “limited to persons with personal knowledge of a material, disputed aspect of the case.”
Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
See, n.3 (1996) (analyzing petitioner’s state and federal constitutional claims under the same standard when he did not argue that Arizona’s protections were more extensive than under the federal counterpart).
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
But the Fifth Amendment does not apply to non-testimonial evidence, and “refusal to take a chemical breath test is not testimonial evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
Rather, “[l]eaving the state justifies a flight instruction as long as it invites some suspicion of guilt.”
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(trial judge strongly presumed to be free from bias and prejudice); (“If confronted with a challenge for cause in which the facts do not clearly establish whether a prospective juror should be removed, the better practice will be to resolve doubt in favor of disqualification.”).
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
h expert offered inconclusive evidence related to mental illness); -50 , -81 (1997) (long-time substance abuse problems insufficient to establish the (G)(1) mitigator); , (insufficient evidence to show methamphetamine use impaired conduct on the day of the murder); , (expert testimony conflicted with respect to mental illness; (G)(1) not established); , (defendant’s ability to drive after the murder discredited any assertion that intoxication existed to establish (G)(1) mitigator); State
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
862 P.2d at 215 ; (6) that requiring appellant to choose between gas and injection is not cruel and unusual, Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir.1997); (7) that the statute does not mandate the death sentence upon finding one aggravator, , (8) that defendant may not death-qualify the sentencing court, , (9) that the statute provides sufficient guidance in balancing the factors, id.; (10) that the statute can require the defendant to prove mitigators by a preponderance of the evidence
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Smith 974 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1999
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997