Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fulminante, 975 P.2d 75.

175 citing documents.

State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 27-28 (1999) (finding that defendant’s “several false, misleading, and inconsistent statements to police, other witnesses, and his wife,” along with evidence of motive, opportunity, and the absence of a rational explanation, provided sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 27-28 (1999) (finding that defendant's "several false, misleading, and inconsistent statements to police, other witnesses, and his wife," along with evidence of motive, opportunity, and the absence of a rational explanation, provided sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to "piece[] together a web of
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 20(a)(1); ¶ 24 (1999).
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
401 ; see State v. Fulminante , , ¶ 56, , 92 (1999).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
42 ¶ 64 (1999) (“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”).
State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bruno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bithell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶13 “Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.” (citation omitted); (citations omitted) (“Intent to commit theft or any felony can be shown by circumstantial evidence.”); ¶ 27, (stating that the defendant’s “false, misleading, and inconsistent statements to police,” and others, demonstrated the defendant’s “consciousness of guilt”).
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
But, if the VBR applies, its enactment “effectively removed the presumption of prejudice that we traditionally attached to a trial judge’s refusal to exclude a witness from the courtroom.”
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. R.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. R.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
at 268, ¶ 27 ( ¶ 64 (1999)).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶ 64, (“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”).
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 9.3(a), 39(b)(4); (recognizing that a Victims’ Bill of Rights excepting the victim from the rule that allows a defendant to exclude witnesses from trial while 7 STATE v. HORTON Decision of the Court other witn
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We “draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict,” ¶ 27, and we resolve any conflict in the evidence in favor of sustaining the verdict.
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
permit[ting] the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” ¶ 62 (1999).
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A guilty verdict may be affirmed based “primarily or entirely on circumstantial evidence,” even when there is “no direct evidence of the defendant’s… participation in [a] murder.” -94, ¶ 25 (1999).
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶20 A victim’s state of mind is relevant to show the defendant’s motive, ¶ 34, or when a defendant raises the defense of accident or suicide
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 26-28 (1999) (applying totality of circumstances test for sufficiency of evidence).