Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roberts, 677 P.2d 280.

33 citing documents.

State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
as a Witness ¶11 Calandra first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to “object” to A.M.’s testimony due to her purported lack of “competency to testify.” ¶12 “Competency has to do with a witness’[s] capacity to observe, recollect and communicate the subject of the testimony.” (emphasis omitted).
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
But, “whether a criminal defendant is entitled to discover certain evidence is a matter within the trial court’s discretion.” Tyler, 149 Ariz. at 314 ().
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mayville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mayville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hiemstra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(questions of witness credibility are for the jury to resolve).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 31 , , Herrera argues the victim’s sexual history was relevant to her credibility.
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Garfield 92 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
702; -22 , -85 (App.1983).
Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
acts as it was required to give notice of under Rule 15.1(a)(6), Arizona Rules of Criminal Proce *484 dure; (3) that an interview of the witness would not be adequate because counsel would have conducted other investigation and reviewed possible prior inconsistent statements by the other witness; (4) defense counsel would have requested a psychological evaluation of the witness, -21 , -84 (App.1983), and (5) defense counsel had made an opening statement in which he had set forth the defense posi
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984