Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bass, 12 P.3d 796.

121 citing documents.

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
However, that evidence was “otherwise established.”
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(hereinafter Hagen), ¶¶ 12-13, -24, -98 (1976); -80, -54 (App. 1975); (“vague allegations of ‘dictatorial means’ tainting the
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Copper State v. Espiritu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
802, 803, 5 COPPER STATE v. ESPIRITU Decision of the Court 804; ¶ 41 (2003) ( ¶ 20 (2000)).
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
801(c); ¶ 70 (2006); ¶ 20 (2000)).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 34 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 46 (2000)).
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13- 1204(A)(2) (as applicable here, a person commits aggravated assault if he “commits assault as prescribed by § 13-1203” and the additional element of using a deadly weapon is proven); overruled on other grounds, ¶ 12
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
And “[b]ecause a jury is free to credit or discredit testimony, we cannot guess what they believed, nor can we determine what a reasonable jury should have believed.” ¶ 46
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In criminal cases, “an event is superseding only if unforeseeable and, with benefit of hindsight, abnormal or extraordinary.” citing Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz Cnty.
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chavez-Tavena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The exception requires proof of: “(1) a startling event, (2) a statement made soon after the event to ensure the declarant has no time to fabricate, and (3) a statement which relates to the startling event.” ¶ 20
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶31 P.3d 796 (2000), for the proposition that the trial court should have excluded the statement.
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Christian Betza Vasquez 311 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶17 Almaguer contends he was entitled to an instruction on proximate cause because the victim’s family’s struggle with him amounted to a superseding cause of the gun’s discharge.5 But an intervening event becomes a superseding event “only when ‘its occurrence was both unforeseeable and when with benefit of hindsight it may be described as abnormal or extraordinary.’” ¶¶ 11, 13, -01 (2000), citing Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz Cnty.
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
13 v. Bass, we vacate the jury’s findings that Johnson committed the murder in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner.10 ¶19 However, we do not remand the case for another jury trial on the aggravating circumstances because at least one other aggravating circumstance was pro
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 12-13, (recognizing criminal standard for superseding cause same as civil); (defendant not liable only when intervening cause considered superseding cause).
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
-81 ¶ 39, -06 (2000) (considering whether admission of evidence that violated the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause was harmless).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
The record confirms he did not object when the trial court referred to §13-604.01 as the sentencing provision for each count; he has therefore waived all but fundamental error review.5 P.3d 796 (2000); P.2d 626 (1991).
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
State v. Prasertphong 114 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2005
at 81, ¶ 34, 75 P.3d at 686 ( ¶ 35, 12 P.3d - 8 - 796, 805 (2000)).5 Relying on Roberts, we then held that the admission of the entire statement under Rules 804(b)(3) and 106 did not violate the Confrontation Clause because “Huerstel’s statements, when viewed in their entirety
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
(“[E]rroneously admitted evidence is harmless in a criminal case only when the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not impact the verdict.”); (improper rehabilitation of witness with hearsa
State v. Castaneda 102 P.3d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004