State v. Reynolds

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ault

    150 Ariz. 459 (Ariz. 1986)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that evidence seized during illegal search must be suppressed but that other evidence seized later pursuant to search warrant was admissible

    However, the body would have inevitably been discovered under the facts of the case and was therefore admissible. The court of appeals in State v. Reynolds, 125 Ariz. 530, 611 P.2d 117 (App. 1980), had occasion to rule on a factual situation similar to the one presently before us. The court allowed photographs, voice print evidence and the victim's identification of her assailant to be admitted at trial.

  2. State v. Warner

    159 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    We will engage in no such assumption. Cf. State v. Hadd, 127 Ariz. 270, 619 P.2d 1047 (Ct.App. 1980) (trial court presumed to know and apply rules of evidence and to not consider inadmissible matters in making its findings); State v. Reynolds, 125 Ariz. 530, 611 P.2d 117 (Ct.App. 1980) (jurors are presumed to know their duty and we will not presume they ignored instructions). Having previously reviewed the record for fundamental error, and finding none, we affirm Warner's convictions and sentences.

  3. State v. Koch

    138 Ariz. 99 (Ariz. 1983)   Cited 86 times
    Finding trial court properly precluded as hearsay third person's description of suspect contained in police report

    We will not presume that the jurors ignored this admonition absent some indication that they did. State v. Parker, 116 Ariz. 3, 567 P.2d 319 (1977); State v. Reynolds, 125 Ariz. 530, 611 P.2d 117 (App. 1980). We conclude that appellant was not prejudiced by the erroneous instruction and his conviction need not be reversed on that basis.

  4. State v. Law

    No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0317 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2014)

    This specific charge was read to the jury at the beginning of trial, and the jury's final verdict form reflects that it found Law guilty as alleged in the indictment. See State v. Reynolds, 125 Ariz. 530, 532, 611 P.2d 117, 119 (App. 1980) ("Jurors are presumed to do their duty," not "betray their trust"). ΒΆ9 Although a detective testified during cross-examination that he believed the truck was also a burglary tool, the state objected when Law proceeded to ask the detective whether the truck formed the basis of the charge.

  5. Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co.

    177 Ariz. 342 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    The trial court correctly instructed the jury, and we presume that the jury followed the instructions given and did not use the evidence for other than its proper purposes. See State v. Reynolds, 125 Ariz. 530, 532, 611 P.2d 117, 119 (App. 1980) ("Jurors are presumed to do their duty."). D.