DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Castro, 788 P.2d 1216.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶20 this Court applied the “directly refutes” exception to the rape shield recognized in Pope.
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    n that any relevance of the seat belt evidence would be outweighed by “a significant risk of confusing the jury.”2 (in weighing probative value against prejudicial impact, appellate court views evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect” ()).
  • State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    And, in assessing a trial court’s Rule 403 determination, we “look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” (quoting United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 1983)).
  • State v. Schoenhardt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Schoenhardt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2008) (citation omitted), but we review precluded evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent
  • State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (), the probative value of the impeachment evidence was nominal.
  • State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (under Rule 403, proffered evidence must be evaluated in the light most favorable to the proponent, “maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    3 STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court effect,’”
  • State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 56, viewing the evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” ¶ 21, ( ).
  • State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    On review, we also consider “the evidence in the ‘light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.’” Id.
  • 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
    We view such evidence “„in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.‟” quoting United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 1983) (emphasis in Castro); see also United States v. Denberg, 212 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 2000) (“„[T]he general rule is that the [Rule 403] balance should be struck in favor of admission.‟”), quoting United States v. De
  • 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
    make the offer of proof so that the reviewing court can determine whether the trial judge erred in precluding the evidence.”); , (finding defendant’s offer of proof “inadequate to relate the facts he wished to prove to his motive theory”).
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    This court views the evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.”
  • State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
    -71 , -21 (App.1989) (recognizing defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to explore victim’s motive as necessary element of presenting the defense).
  • Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (stating that appellate court looks at excluded evidence in light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Fernane 914 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    rules favors admissibility.’ ” -74 , -25 (App.1989) (quoting 1 J. Weinstein and M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence § 403[03] at 403-51 (1989) [hereinafter Wein-stein] ).
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    “‘[T]he appellate court “must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.’”” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991