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. Brown, 532 P.2d 167.

37 citing documents.

  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See Stotts, 144 Ariz. at 82; (Reliable evidence is what is trustworthy.).
  • State v. Orona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Orona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    In the meantime, however, we take guidance in resolving this problem from the precedent set by State v. Brown (Brown I), , which our supreme court affirmed and approved in State v. Brown (Brown II)
  • State of Arizona v. Eddie Brian Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Eddie Brian Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    3 aff’d P.2d 1047 (1975).
  • State v. Snider 835 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Snider 835 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    “Hearsay evidence is considered reliable where the circumstances tend to establish that the evidence offered is trustworthy.” , , approved
  • State v. Robbins 803 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Robbins 803 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Again, conforming to the traditional post-conviction remedies which the rule was designed to simplify, subsection (c) of Rule 32.9 was adopted to thereafter provide discretionary review in the appropriate appellate court.” Brown, 112 Ariz. at 31-32 , 536 P.2d at 1049 -50 ( , ) (emphasis added).
  • Kanuck v. Meehan 798 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Kanuck v. Meehan 798 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    approved in part, , and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-83341-S
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Tulipane 596 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Tulipane 596 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1979
  • In Re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-83341-S 580 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-83341-S 580 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    We recognize that probation is not to be considered a matter of grace, “but is a liberty protected by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, a liberty of which the probationer may not be deprived without due process of law, including the right to confront and examine one’s accusers.” , approved in part
  • State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
    Rule 27.7(b)(3), Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended 1975, provides that at a revocation hearing “[t]he court may receive any reliable evidence not legally privileged, including hearsay.” , the Court of Appeals, Division One, interpreted Rule 27.7(b)(3), previously designated Rule 27.7(c)(3), Rules of Criminal Procedure (1973), to permit hearsay “where, in the sound discretion of the trial court, the circumstances are such as to afford a reasonable assurance of the truthfulness of
  • State v. Baylis 553 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Baylis 553 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Second, we do not feel that the petition to revoke in the current case constituted “reliable hearsay”
  • State v. Fuentes 549 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Flores 549 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Flores 549 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    w designated Rule 27.7(b)(3), provides that, “The court may receive any reliable evidence not legally privileged, including hearsay.” This Court has interpreted this rule to permit hearsay “where, in the sound discretion of the trial court, the circumstances are such as to afford a reasonable assurance of the truthfulness of the hearsay and the circumstances warrant its use.” State v. Brown, *401
  • State v. Brown 536 P.2d 1047 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Brown 536 P.2d 1047 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Belcher 535 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Belcher 535 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1975
    State v. Salinas, 23 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Chambers 534 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Chambers 534 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Tash 532 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Tash 532 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    See State v. Brown, Ariz.App.
  • State v. Salinas 532 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Salinas 532 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    for further discussion of this question.