Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nordstrom, 25 P.3d 717.

148 citing documents.

State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
e Arizona Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of other-act evidence: “Rule 404(b) requires that the evidence be admitted for a proper purpose, Rule 402 requires that the evidence be relevant, Rule 403 requires that the danger of unfair prejudice not outweigh probative value, and Rule 105 requires that the judge give an appropriate limiting instruction upon request.”
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
-46 n.21(4), -63 n.21(4) (1992), P.3d 717 (2001).
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
See id.; ¶ 56, (commenting on the “necessary preliminary” prong of the intrinsic evidence inquiry).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 155 P.3d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 155 P.3d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶¶ 1-4, 6, 8, -26 (2001) (Nordstrom I ).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 645-46 n.21, -63 n.21 (1992), P.3d 717 (2001).
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.”), overruled on other grounds by Ring II, 536 U.S. 586-87; (“Placing the burden on the defendant to prove mitigating circumstances is not a violation of due process.”), ¶ 25
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
reverse [a] defendant’s conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct if 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. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 145 To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that “(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.” , ¶ 25
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
We determine whether “under the totality of the circumstances the publicity attendant to defendant’s trial was so pervasive that it caused the proceeding to be fundamentally unfair.” (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)), ¶ 25
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hall 65 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montaño 65 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2003
We rejected a ¶ 92 , stating that “[t]he defendant alleges no prejudice as a result of this denial....
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
¶23 (2001) (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297-98 (1967)); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
ors or otherwise distracted them from their duty to decide the case based solely on the evidence presented, making the trial little more than a “mockery of justice or a mere formality.” Stokley, 182 Ariz. at 513 , 898 P.2d at 462 (quoting Bible, 175 Ariz. at 563 , 858 P.2d at 1166 ; , , 241 ¶ 25, , 729 ¶ 25 (2001)).
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
645-46 n. 21, , 662-63 n. 21 (1992), , , 729 ¶ 25 (2001).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-46 n.21, -63 n.21 (1992), ¶25 (2001).