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. Hunter, 669 P.2d 1011.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (noting the failure to make findings does not require reversal where it is clear from the record that the trial court balanced the relevant factors) (citation omitted).
  • In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    -40, -17 (App. 1983) (refusing to correct legislative oversight in sentencing enhancement statute).
  • In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    -40 , -17 (App.1983) (refusing to correct legislative oversight in sentencing enhancement statute).
  • State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 7 , , (stating that the defendant’s admission on cross-examination of a prior conviction was “inherently reliable”).
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    -40, -17 (App. 1983) (refusing to correct legislative oversight in sentencing enhancement statute).
  • State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    cited by defendant, the court was confronted with a legislative omission.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    State v. McMurry, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
    (accused’s admission while testifying may sufficiently establish the prior conviction); , (defendant’s admission on the stand of a prior conviction was sufficient proof of it); , (defendant’s admission on cross-examination of prior convictions is inherently reliable).
  • State v. Ransom 764 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Ransom 764 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently stated that “the preferred method for complying with Rule 609 is a specific on-the-record finding that the probative value of using a prior conviction for impeachment outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.” , (emphasis added), ( , , ), aff'd, Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Adams 745 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Adams 745 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
    Banks v. Arizona State Board of Pardons & Paroles
  • State v. Hackworth 716 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Hackworth 716 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    this court stated: In determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction pursuant to Rule 609, the trial court must balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect of admission of the evidence of the prior conviction.
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984