Cited by

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

194 citing documents.

State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998) (allowing defendant to stipulate to prior conviction as sentencing aggravator); Ariz. R.Crim.
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“The prosecutor has an obligation to seek justice, not merely a conviction, and must refrain from using improper methods to obtain a conviction.”) (citing, inter alia, Pool, 139 Ariz. at 103 , 677 P.2d at 266 ); , 64 ¶ 33, (A prosecutor’s responsibilities extend “beyond the duty to convict defendants.
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction “on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” P.2d 1006 (1998).
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Prosecutors’ dishonest conduct or unwarranted concealment should attract no judicial approbation.” (Citations omitted.)); , 64 ¶¶ 31-33, (high standards expected of public attorneys).
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
Second, although Peasley had not previously been formally disciplined by the State Bar, at least two reported decisions discuss Peasley’s misconduct in the prosecution of those cases.15 ¶52 ¶¶ 31-33, (Peasley violated the discovery rules, failing to ensure that the defendant received a fair trial), (Peasley made inflammatory remarks about the defendant and made an impermissible comment
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
¶ 27 , see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19 , 119 S.Ct.
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998), we rejected the defendant’s claim that reversal was required because the prosecutor “misled him into believing that the state would proceed on a premeditated theory as well as on a felony murder theory.” The court held that “[t]he prosecutor has no independent duty to tell
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶ 14 “A party is entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-53 , -13 (1993), , 63-64 n. 7, , 1011-12 n. 7 ¶¶ 28-30 (1998); -16 , -61 (1983); -08 , -33 (1981), , 57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2 (1983).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-53, -13 (1993), - 64 n.7, -12 n.7 ¶¶28-30 (1998); -16, -61 (1983); -08, -33 (1981), n.2, n.2 (1983).
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McKeon 38 P.3d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Because a party is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case supported by the evidence, , 61 ¶ 16, juries must be instructed, if the state so requests, that when determining premeditation, the length of time necessary to permit reflection can be as instantaneous as successive thoughts.
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
See, , (“Federal cases hold that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, as construed by this court, does narrow the class of death eligible defendants sufficiently to comply with the Eighth Amendment.”), overruled on other grounds
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
590 (1995) (death-qualifying a jury does not violate the right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community); , (excusing jurors who disapprove of capital punishment does not violate Arizona constitutional ban against excusing jurors for their religious convictions), overruled on other grounds, , 64 n. 7, , 1012 n. 7 (1998); , (jurors may be *142 death-qualified even though they do not impose the death penalty).
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
for the proposition that counsel’s failure to ask for the instruction was prejudicial and rises to a constitutional level such that the claim may not be precluded.
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
7 ¶ 35 , to support this argument.
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998