Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeaugreen2 sentences2023Here, the jury was instructed to “decide each count separately on the evidence, with the law applicable to it, uninfluenced by your decision on any other count.” We presume that the jury followed that instruction, State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 446, ¶ 67 (2016), which Harwood also emphasized in closing argument. 2019Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 214 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. LeBlancgreen2 sentences2016See State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437, 439 , 924 P.2d 441, 443 (1996). 2016See State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437, 439 , 924 P.2d 441, 443 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Paynegreen2 sentences2026State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 , 518 ¶ 151 (2013). 2023See Payne, 233 Ariz. at 513, ¶ 120 . | 1 | 2 |
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawngreen2 sentences2010Hyatt Regen cy, 184 Ariz. at 140 , 907 P.2d at 526 . 2010Hyatt Regen cy, 184 Ariz. at 140 , 907 P.2d at 526 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Caniongreen1 sentence2025See State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 237 ¶ 43 (App. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126 , 129 ¶ 11 (App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunlapgreen1 sentence2022See State v. Dunlap, 187 Ariz. 441, 461 (App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Newellgreen1 sentence2018Once the objection was sustained, C.W.’s and V.E.’s testimonies did not suggest Jordan was a “bad man who lied,” but simply explained that they spoke to police after “read[ing] some things” or reading an article that caused them to no longer be concerned about “the children.” Additionally, prior to deliberations, the court instructed the jury as follows: “If the court sustained an objection to a lawyer’s question, you must disregard it and any answer given.” We presume the jury followed the instruction and did not consider the answer suggesting Jordan was untruthful.3 See State v. Newell, 212 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Velazquezgreen2 sentences2015State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300 , 312 ¶ 50, 166 P.3d 91, 103 (2007). 2015State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300 , 312 ¶ 50, 166 P.3d 91, 103 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Herreragreen2 sentences2014State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 395 , 850 P.2d 100, 108 (1993). ¶27 For the foregoing reasons, we discern no prosecutorial misconduct; therefore, we cannot find cumulative error. 2014State v. Herrera, 174 Ariz. 387, 395 , 850 P.2d 100, 108 (1993). ¶27 For the foregoing reasons, we discern no prosecutorial misconduct; therefore, we cannot find cumulative error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beasleygreen2 sentences2010See State v. Beasley, 205 Ariz. 334, 337, ¶ 15 , 70 P.3d 463, 466 (App.2003) (court was not required to make explicit findings that balanced the probative value of the evidence against the unfair prejudice because the record revealed that the parties argued both the probative value and any unfair prejudice that could result in the admission of the statement). ¶ 43 Finally, the court instructed the jury not to consider Dr. Hoberman’s testimony as truth of the DNA finding. 13 We assume the jury followed that instruction. 2010See State v. Beasley, 205 Ariz. 334, 337, ¶ 15 , 70 P.3d 463, 466 (App.2003) (court was not required to make explicit findings that balanced the probative value of the evidence against the unfair prejudice because the record revealed that the parties argued both the probative value and any unfair prejudice that could result in the admission of the statement). ¶ 43 Finally, the court instructed the jury not to consider Dr. Hoberman’s testimony as truth of the DNA finding. 13 We assume the jury followed that instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCurdygreen2 sentences2009Because we must presume the jury followed this instruction, State v. McCurdy, 216 Ariz. 567, 574, ¶ 17 , 169 P.3d 931, 938 (App.2007), any danger the jury would use the letter as evidence of SWA’s actions on September 11, 1999 or any other day was negligible. 4 ¶ 17 Third, Hood, SWA’s attorney, testified he was unaware of the prevalent problem mentioned in the letter, explicitly dispelling any notion that SWA had experienced such problems. ¶ 18 For these reasons, the trial court did not err by admitting the FAA letter in evidence. 2009Because we must presume the jury followed this instruction, State v. McCurdy, 216 Ariz. 567, 574, ¶ 17 , 169 P.3d 931, 938 (App.2007), any danger the jury would use the letter as evidence of SWA’s actions on September 11, 1999 or any other day was negligible. 4 ¶ 17 Third, Hood, SWA’s attorney, testified he was unaware of the prevalent problem mentioned in the letter, explicitly dispelling any notion that SWA had experienced such problems. ¶ 18 For these reasons, the trial court did not err by admitting the FAA letter in evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Blackman
green
1 sentence2018Presuming, as we must on this record, that the jury followed its instruction to not consider punishment, see Blackman, 201 Ariz. at 543 ¶ 65 (jurors are presumed to follow the trial court’s instruction not to consider punishment in deciding guilt), Burgess cannot satisfy his burden of establishing prejudice. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Elliott v. Landon
green
2 sentences1986Elliott v. London, 89 Ariz. 355 , 362 P.2d 733 (1961). 1986Elliott v. London, 89 Ariz. 355 , 362 P.2d 733 (1961). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.