Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046.

212 citing documents.

State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Unfair prejudice is an “undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy[] or horror.”
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory the evidence reasonably supports, ¶ 197 (2004), but a court does not err by refusing to give a jury instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions,” (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is unfairly prejudicial.” -46 (1997).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
JUSTICE TIMMER, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Although a defendant cannot use evidence of a mental disease or defect to show he did not form a crime’s requisite mental state (mens rea), –13 (1965), he may use evidence of a character trait for impulsivity to cast doubt on the existence of premeditation, which forms part of the mens rea for first degree murder under A.R.S.
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cleveland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spooner v. Phoenix 435 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Curl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Curl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- 46 (1997) (explaining “[n]ot all harmful evidence” is unfairly prejudicial, only evidence that “has an undue tendency to suggest [a] decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”).
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nevertheless, a court does not err by refusing to give a jury instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions.” (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”).
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter 424 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter 424 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2018
We also consider whether expert testimony regarding the psychological effects of an abuser’s ongoing threats of harm may constitute observation evidence permissible under Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006)
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Mott , , 540-41, , 1050-51 (1997).
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fisk v. Hurricane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
This tautological statement is insufficient to make a showing of unfair prejudice, which results if “evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[T]he legislature is responsible for promulgating the criminal law.”).
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
¶16 we recognized that the legislature, not this Court, is responsible for promulgating the criminal law.
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
¶ 36 (2016) (agreeing that courts cannot add elements to crimes defined by the legislature); (recognizing that the legislature, not this Court, is responsible for promulgating the criminal law).
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018