Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Orendain, 932 P.2d 1325.

64 citing documents.

State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
.’” (quoting United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 1991))), vacated in part on other grounds
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. Saavedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶19 We review de novo whether jury instructions properly set forth the law, but review the trial court’s denial of requested jury instructions for abuse of discretion, Brethauer v. Gen.
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Satovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.” see also Box, 205 Ariz. at 497, ¶ 15, 73 P.3d at 628 (stating that traffic stop was not unreasonable seizure because it was justified by speeding); overruled on other grounds, State v.Orendain, P.2d 1325 (1997) (traffic stop of vehicle for following another vehicle too closely, in violation of traffic laws, was not unreasonable seizure).
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
We note that structural error is “fundamental [in] nature” and generally “can be raised for the first time on appeal.”
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(“We review de novo whether .
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Although we review for an abuse of discretion whether the trial court erred in giving or refusing to give requested jury instructions, , we review de novo whether the instruction it gave correctly states the law
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean Edmisten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶13 Second, although our supreme court has approved instructions using the “every element” language that Edmisten claims on appeal was erroneously omitted, 56, 1327 (1997), Edmisten has cited no authority that would require the trial court to use that language.3 As we stated above, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the state’s burden, using the language mandated by our supreme court in Portillo, 182 Ariz. at 596, 898 P.2d at 974
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Moody, , 94 P.3d at 1140 (constitutional issues); , (jury instructions).
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Carrasco, 33 P.3d at 794.
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
3 3 ¶ 8 We generally review a trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 31 , but review de novo whether the instructions given the jury properly state the law
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“We review de novo whether ...
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003