Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rienhardt, 951 P.2d 454.

249 citing documents.

State v. Karaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Karaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Crack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Crack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya 554 P.3d 473 Ariz. 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Velasquez-Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Tillman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Tillman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
abrogation on other grounds recognized by McKinney, 813 F.3d at 816; see also Morris, 215 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 70 (“Photographs of a victim’s body are always relevant because ‘the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.’” (citations omitted)).
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hanss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hanss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§§ 28-1383(A)(1), 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -589 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Robert Allen Poyson 475 P.3d 293 Ariz. 2020
s of significant impairment); McKinney I, 245 Ariz. at 227 ¶ 10 (finding PTSD mitigation evidence insufficiently substantial to warrant leniency when defendant’s actions during the murder were “planned and deliberate”); ¶ 111 (2008) (finding weight of defendant’s alcohol impairment weakened by his “purposeful steps to avoid prosecution”); –92 (1997) (“[A] defendant’s claim of alcohol or drug impairment fails when .
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
After an 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, -89 (1997), in December 2012, Collins and Anthony Whitmore shot and killed D.M.
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Regan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Regan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
He walked away for a short time before charging back toward the police at a “dead sprint” yelling and with 1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. Fish Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fish Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997).
State v. Jennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” –89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
later testified that black smoke had filled the home, 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶4 The primary investigating officer called highway patrol officers informing them the truck was potentially involved in suspicious 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
39 times after 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” -89 (1997) (citation omitted).
State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Kellywood 433 P.3d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
P. 15.1(b) ; State v. Rienhardt , , 585-86, , 460-61 (1997).