Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hughes, 969 P.2d 1184.

331 citing documents.

State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
The defendant must show that the offending statements, in the context of the entire proceeding, “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 26, (internal quotation omitted).
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
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ¶ 26, (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
two conditions are satisfied: (1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” , *341 , 241 ¶ 25, , 79 ¶ 26
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 62 , *239 (citing Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 , 858 P.2d at 1175 ).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
this court applied the "cumulative error” doctrine to a case in which an appellant raised seven separate claims of misconduct, the cumulative effect of which he alleged "denied him a fair trial.” Id.
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
On appeal, this court reversed Hughes’ convictions, finding that “the cumulative effect of [Zawada’s] misconduct deprived [Hughes] of a fair trial.” ¶ 1
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
State v. Minnitt 55 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
(internal citations omitted) (-88, -1200 ¶¶61-73 (1998)).
Widoff v. Wiens 45 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Widoff v. Wiens 45 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“Failure to object waives an issue on appeal absent fundamental error.”).
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. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 26 , Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Trani 26 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 9 , the court found the same prosecutor’s misconduct as egregious as it had been in Pool .
State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jorgenson 10 P.3d 1177 Ariz. 2000