Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fischer, 199 P.3d 663.

36 citing documents.

State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Non-testimonial statements are not subject to a confrontation challenge.” ¶ 37 (App. 2008).
Rogers v. Hon Mroz 479 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rogers v. Hon Mroz 479 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 436 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (referring to “prostitution of underage girls”); ¶ 11 (App. 2018) (addressing child prostitution statute); ¶ 10 (App. 2011) (noting “illegal pornography sites that appeared to depict violence against underage girls”); ¶ 27 (App. 2008) (referencing “underage girls” in the context of the crime of sexual conduct with a minor).
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 37 (App. 2008) ("Non-testimonial statements are not subject to a confrontation challenge."); cf. United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 334 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that machine-generated images were not "statements" in the context of the Confrontation Clause).
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The common scheme or plan may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.” ¶ 46 (App. 2008) ().
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Elise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
415, ¶¶ 8, 21 (App. 2008).
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramos-Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We review the superior court’s admission of other-act evidence under Rule 404(c) for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2017), and we will reverse the court’s ruling “only upon a finding of clear prejudice,” ¶ 24 (App. 2008).
James Morreno v. Hon. brickner/state/montgomery 416 P.3d 807 Ariz. 2018
James Morreno v. Hon. brickner/state/montgomery 416 P.3d 807 Ariz. 2018
–15 ¶ 20 (App. 2008) (stating that consent is not an element of the offense of sexual conduct with a minor, and that a defendant may commit the crime “regardless of a minor’s purported consent”).
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling, Gay, 214 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 4, and will uphold the court’s ruling unless there is a finding of clear prejudice, ¶ 24 (App. 2008).
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
And although he argues there are “innocent explanations” for why Smith’s DNA was found on N.S.’s underwear, “the State is not required to disprove ‘every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.’”
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
The State “is not required to disprove every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.” ¶ 43, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Fischer, 199 P.3d at 671.
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 33, (noting a statement admitted simply to show the statement was made is not hearsay); see Hernandez, 170 Ariz. at 306, 823 P.2d at 1314 (“Words offered to prove the effect on the hearer are admissible when they are offered to show their effect on one whose conduct is at issue.”)
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Moreover, the State is not required to disprove every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence.” ¶ 43, (quoting Nash, 143 Ariz. at 404, 694 P.2d at 234).
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
175 Ariz. at 595 , 858 P.2d at 1198 ; , (same).