Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Connor, 161 P.3d 596.

123 citing documents.

State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 6, (App. 2 STATE v. DYER Decision of the Court 2007).
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stated differently, and subject to various limitations, “[e]vidence relevant for any purpose other than showing propensities to act in a certain way remains admissible.” ¶ 32
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-59, ¶¶ 13-14, -02 (App. 2007).
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Salamanca 311 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 39 , (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Welty 308 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977); , 561 ¶ 21
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Morehart v. Barton 236 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, ¶¶ 9-10 , (noting that even when a defendant’s due process rights are implicated, a wholesale abandonment of a victim’s rights in deferral thereto is unwarranted and careful balancing of the competing interests must be conducted); ¶
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Damper 225 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 39 , (internal quotation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 7 (collecting authorities); ¶¶ 18-25, -05 (App. 2007) (no substantial need for medical records to show victim’s psychological propensity for violence when, among other reasons, majority of any evidence obtained would be inadmissible).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“Because ‘[t]he trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice,’ [it] has broad discretion in this decision.”
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(applying Arizona Rules of Evidence and stating that specific prior violent acts admissible if known to defendant to show defendant’s state of mind); ¶¶ 14-16 , (specific act evidence is admissible if defendant was aware of such prior acts because knowledge *117 of the victim’s disposition “may have affected [his or her] thinking about the need to respond with deadly physical force;” unknown prior acts inadmissible for such purpos
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008