Cited by

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

212 citing documents.

State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jacobson 418 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jacobson 418 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
it was nevertheless admissible to show that she committed the charged offenses under duress.") (citing State v. Mott , , 541, , 1051 (1997) ; A.R.S.
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gehon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision 4 Although Hunter refers to the “State’s” use of the term “cadaver,” she raises this claim as part of her challenge to the admission of the “dog sniff” evidence, and we therefore review the argument within that cont
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, ¶ 197 (2004), but a court does not err by refusing to give an 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. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 81 (2003) (“We 12 STATE v. SILVA Decision of the Court have encouraged trial courts to closely follow statutory language when instructing on felony murder.”), vacated on other grounds by, 541 U.S. 1039 (2004); (explaining a trial court need not provide a proximate cause instruction when the given instructions “instruct the jury on the elements of the crime, including causation,” and, in their entirely, adequately reflect the law).
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-41, 544 , -51, 1054 (1997); -13
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
Unfair prejudice is an “undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy or horror.”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
-41 , -51 (1997) (the legislature decides whether “to adopt the defense of diminished capacity” and the “Court does not have the authority” to do so).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
–41, –51 (1997) (the legislature decides whether “to adopt the defense of diminished capacity” and the “Court does not have the authority” to do so).
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Estes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Estes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citation omitted), unless that instruction is adequately covered by other instructions, or is misleading to the jury
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–46, –56 (1997) (reviewing independently whether the probative value of prior acts is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice after the trial court failed to perform the required balancing test); ¶ 32, (stating
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“Unfair prejudice results if the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, such as emotion, sympathy, or horror.”
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
As a result, “Arizona does not allow evidence of a defendant’s mental disorder short of insanity either as an affirmative defense or to negate the mens rea element of a crime.”
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A trial court, however, is not required to give a requested jury instruction when “its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014