Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Doerr, 969 P.2d 1168.

176 citing documents.

State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 35 (1998) ("Where the law is adequately covered by instructions as a whole, no reversible error has occurred.").
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Impermissible vouching occurs “(1) when [the] prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness, and (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” ¶ 24 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
As arms of the State, prosecutors must not only disclose exculpatory evidence, they may not knowingly elicit false testimony, ¶ 11 (2005), or use the prestige of the government to improperly vouch for the credibility of the State’s witnesses, ¶ 24 (1998) ().
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Where the law is adequately covered by instructions as a whole, no reversible error has occurred.” ¶ 35 (1998) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 35 (1998) (“Where the law is adequately covered by instructions as a whole, no reversible error has occurred.”).
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.’” ¶ 26 (1998) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Weber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Satzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Satzman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18 (App. 2008) (absent argument or authority that the alleged error is fundamental, a defendant cannot sustain his or her burden to show fundamental error resulting in prejudice); –62, ¶ 18 (1998) (juror prejudice will not be presumed but must be demonstrated by objective evidence).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Once the court determines a challenged photograph is relevant, it must determine whether it has “a tendency to inflame or incite passion in the jurors.” ¶ 29 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Thus, when a lay witness is “drawing a reasonable inference from [his] firsthand knowledge and perceptions of a situation,” the witness is “competent to voice [his] opinion,” , even as to the ultimate issue
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 25-28 (1998) (holding defense cross-examination “that implied that the police had improperly failed to look for an assailant,” as identified by the defendant, “opened the door” to the officer’s testimony on redirect explaining “why the police did not believe the defendant and did not do more to pursue another
State v. Garwo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garwo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 27 (1998) ("When a party elicits evidence or comments that make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal," the door is opened to pertinent, generally impermissible evidence.).3 Accordingly, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by asking Garwo whether th
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 24, (citation omitted).
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“One cannot ‘complain about a result he caused.’” ¶ 27 (1998) (quoting Morris K. Udall et al., Law of Evidence, § 11, at 11 (3d ed. 1991)).
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cardwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Moreover, “[w]here the law is adequately covered by [the] instructions as a whole, no reversible error has occurred.” ¶ 35, (citation omitted).
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We will reverse only if the instructions, taken together, would have misled the jurors.” ¶ 35 (1998).
State v. Tarantino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tarantino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.’” ¶ 20, (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24, (citation omitted).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24 (1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 37 (1998) (noting that in Noriega, this court "expressly limited" the requirement of a mere presence instruction to a prosecution based on accomplice liability).