Cited by

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

175 citing documents.

State v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24 (1999) (directed verdict of acquittal warranted only in absence of substantial evidence).
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Substantial evidence is “proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (quoting Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 67, 796 P.2d at 869).
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.” ¶ 64
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If the State “negligently fail[s] to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, P.2d 274 (1964), permits the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” 503
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 60 , (profane statement by defendant was admissible notwithstanding Rule 403).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Accordingly, while a defendant must do more than simply speculate that the unpreserved items would have been helpful to his case, see, -64, -41 (App. 1996); he is entitled to an instruction if he can demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been material and potentially useful to a defense theory su
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“An 5 U.S. 39, 49-50 & 49 n.9 (1984)
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy”).
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
26 The statement merely posed a hypothetical question and, therefore, was not admissible under the state-of-mind exception in Rule 803(3) because it neither described a “present feeling or future intent[],” nor did it “tend to prove relevant conduct of the declarant.” ¶¶ 32-33
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
State v. West 250 P.3d 1188 Ariz. 2011
See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 (1982) (stating Due Process Clause prohibits convictions based upon legally insufficient evidence); cf. State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 492 ¶ 19, (“[I]f the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction, the charges must be dismissed.”).
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
2 , (“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”).
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
“A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a request for a Willits instruction when a defendant fails to establish 16 that the lost evidence would have had a tendency to exonerate him.” ¶ 62
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
this issue because she objected at trial that the opinion “call[ed] for a legal conclusion and [invaded] the purview of the jury” but on appeal “urges [us] to overturn long-established Arizona precedent and forbid police officers from opining about such matters in all cases.” “An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Bassett 161 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶¶ 50, 54-55, 91 (1999) (given state’s “thin case for murder,” prosecutor’s emphasis of improperly admitted evidence during closing argument contributed to finding of reversible error).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 3 ‘We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” ¶ 12 , (citation omitted); ¶ 27 , (stating that, in reviewing the record, we draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict).
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
¶ 64 , (“An objection is sufficiently made if it provides the judge with an opportunity to provide a remedy.”).
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003