State v. Champagne
| Docket Number | CR-17-0425-AP |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2019 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
21 cases
-
State v. Robinson
... ... 352, 367 ¶ 56, 460 P.3d 1236, 1251 (2020) (aggravator narrowing challenge foreclosed by Hidalgo ); State v. Riley , 248 Ariz. 154, 195–97 ¶¶ 171–80, 459 P.3d 66, 107–109 (2020) (same); ( James C. ) Johnson , 247 Ariz. at 179 ¶¶ 7–8, 447 P.3d at 796 (same); State v. Champagne , 247 Ariz. 116, 139 ¶ 72, 447 P.3d 297, 320 (2019) (same); State v. Acuna Valenzuela , 245 Ariz. 197, 224 ¶ 121, 426 P.3d 1176, 1203 (2018) (same). Hidalgo "remains binding precedent"; therefore, for the reasons explained there, we reject Robinson's argument here. See Riley , 248 Ariz ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
... ... 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). We have repeatedly rejected this argument in light of further narrowing instructions, as were provided here. See, e.g. , State v. Champagne , No. CR-17-0425-AP, ––– Ariz. ––––, ––––, 447 P.3d 297, 321–22, 2019 WL 3676317, at *15 ¶¶ 75–76 (Ariz. Aug. 7, 2019). ¶18 Johnson next argues the trial court’s narrowing instructions failed to provide sufficient guidance on whether Johnson’s murder exceeded the ... ...
-
State v. Smith
... ... We review a trial court's admission of evidence during the penalty phase for abuse of discretion and give "deference to a trial judge's determination of whether rebuttal evidence offered during the penalty phase is ‘relevant’ within the meaning of the statute." State v. Champagne , 247 Ariz. 116, 142 ¶ 87, 447 P.3d 297, 323 (2019) (quoting State v. McGill , 213 Ariz. 147, 156–57 ¶ 40, 140 P.3d 930, 939-40 (2006) ). "The threshold for relevance is a low one." State v. Leteve , 237 Ariz. 516, 529 ¶ 48, 354 P.3d 393, 406 (2015) (quoting Roque , 213 Ariz. at 221 ¶ ... ...
-
State v. Riley
... ... Courts may instruct a jury under these circumstances to minimize the risk that a jury will base its verdict on an erroneous legal assumption. See, e.g. , State v. Champagne , 247 Ariz. 116, 137 ¶ 60, 447 P.3d 297, 318 (2019) (holding the trial court did not commit instructional error when, "without the voluntary intoxication instruction the jury could have rejected [defendant]’s claim of innocence but improperly concluded that his voluntary intoxication prevented ... ...
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
TOWARD A MORE PERFECT TRIAL: AMENDING FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 106 AND 803 TO COMPLETE THE RULE OF COMPLETENESS.
...been admitted under the rule of completeness, even if it otherwise would have constituted self- serving hearsay."); State v. Champagne, 447 P.3d 297, 315 (Ariz. 2019) ("The same rule generally applies to non- recorded statements."). Text: Adopted and retains the Uniform Rule, Second, versio......