Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fish, 213 P.3d 258.

73 citing documents.

State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 8 (App. 2009) (finding an error is harmless if “the actual verdict rendered ‘was surely unattributable to the error’” ( ¶ 39 (2008))).
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
When making a Rule 404(b) determination, the superior court must determine whether the evidence is “clear and convincing as to the conduct and that the person alleged to have committed it did so, although ultimately those facts are left to the jury to decide if the evidence is admitted.” ¶ 43 (App. 2009).
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pool, 139 Ariz. at 103 (internal quotation omitted); ¶ 48 n.11 (App. 2009).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
( STATE v. STEWART Decision of the Court (1973), and 1 M. Udall & J. Livermore, Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 11 at 11 (2d ed. 1982)); n.11, ¶ 48 (App. 2009) (explaining how the prosecutor’s remarks regarding the victim’s demeanor opened the door for the defendant to introduce prior act evidence to show the victim’s state of mind).
State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Arizona, “a defendant may not introduce evidence of specific acts unknown to the defendant at the time of the alleged crime to show that the victim was the initial aggressor.” ¶ 35
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bryan Peter Foshay 370 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Relevant evidence is that which has “‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence’” and “[t]he standard of relevance is not particularly high.” quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
¶ 42, (citing Tankersley and concluding that Rule 404(b) “applies to prior acts of .
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(citing Tankersley and stating Rule 404(b) “applies to prior acts of alleged victims or third parties”).
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009