Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodriguez, 961 P.2d 1006.

196 citing documents.

State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
With respect to jury instructions, “the test is whether the instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case.” ¶ 16 (1998).
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez 433 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(defendant is bound by his counsel’s tactical or strategic decisions to waive even constitutional rights), ¶ 29 (App. 2017) (a 6 ARPOP 40 provides: (a) A plaintiff may ask for modification of a protective order at any time during the term of the order.
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. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Boteo-Flores , , ¶ 7, , 113 (App. 2012) (trial court may be affirmed for any legally correct reason); see also State v. Rodriguez , , ¶ 16, , 1009-10 (1998) (party only entitled to jury instruction reasonably supported by evidence).
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Holm v. Gateway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (1998) (on review, this court looks to whether instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case).
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sommerfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-1104(A)(3); ¶ 16 (1998) (court need not give every instruction requested by the defense: “The test is whether the [given] instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case”).
State v. J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Zuluaga ex rel. Zuluaga v. Bashas', Inc. 394 P.3d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
If the court elects to give a curative instruction, however, it must not “express[] ‘an opinion as to what the evidence proves,’ in a way that interferes “with the jury’s independent evaluation of that evidence.’ ” ¶¶ 49-51 , , see Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27.
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(prosecutor’s closing argument that characterized defense questions as a “ploy,” “outrageous,” and “improper” was “well within the wide latitude afforded” during closing argument) n. 7, ¶ 30 (1998); (prosecutor’s characterization of defense as a “smoke screen” not improper).
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 16, (party is entitled to have jury instructed on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence).
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 16 (1998) (explaining a “party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“[T]he test is whether the instructions [as a whole] adequately set forth the law applicable to the case.” -10 (1998).
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Evidentiary Support ¶9 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶23 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 16 (1998).
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Veseli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶11 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 16
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde 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. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alonzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Indeed, our supreme court has held that a prosecutor arguing certain questions by defense counsel were “‘a defense ploy,’ ‘improper,’ and ‘outrageous’” is “well within the latitude afforded both parties in closing argument.” n.7, n.7 (1998); –72, –80 (1990) (finding that prosecutor’s arguments that defense counsel “blind-sided witnesses,” created a “smoke screen,” and relied on “innuendo and inference” to support her “outrageous” argument was “not i