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. Leonard, 725 P.2d 493.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    See, -82, -67 (App. 1991) (physician sharing knowledge of alcohol and cocaine intoxication); -6, -98 (App. 1986) 3 We need not decide the disputed question of whether a verdict ever may be challenged when a juror has affirmed it in a proper poll.
  • State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    As a general rule, “the [S]tate is not required to accept a stipulation when the prejudicial potential of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the [S]tate’s legitimate need to prove the facts.”
  • State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    But in those cases, the defendants had been sentenced before the effective date of the 2012 6 STATE v. COTA Opinion of the Court pending criminal cases because a defendant has “no vested right to a particular mode of procedure.”
  • State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    (“[P]rohibitions against ex post facto laws do not apply to changes in rules of evidence, whether statutory or court- made.”).
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    -28 , -13 (App.1991) (holding that a statute that permitted hearsay testimony to establish probable cause was consistent with the purpose of the hearsay exceptions in Rules of Evidence 803 and 804); , (holding statute regarding the admissibility of blood alcohol test results did not conflict with the rules of evidence or engulf a general rule of admissibility); , *169 (holding that statutory provisions go
  • State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (“Exhibits which have the tendency to cause prejudice may often be admissible despite offers to stipulate or the absence of controverting or contradicting evidence.”); 730
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Manuel Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    He relies primarily on State v. Leonard, 151 Ariz. 1, 8, in which Division One of this court found harmless error in the trial court’s rejection of stipulations the defendant had offered that would have admitted prior convictions for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (D UI), holding that “the state is not required to accept
  • State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    ¶7 P.2d 493 (App. 1986), in which the court held that the trial court had erred by refusing to accept a defendant’s stipulation to the existence of prior convictions under an earlier DUI statute.
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (procedural rules may apply retroactively unless retroactive application would impair vested rights); , (same).
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Galati 973 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Galati 973 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶ 5 , found that the trial court should have accepted the same sort of stipulation that the trial court proposed to accept in this case.
  • State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    -8 , -500 (App.1986) (finding error in the trial court’s rejection of a defendant’s proffered stipulation, even though the stipulation was to be made “outside the presence of the jury”).
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    (statutory amendment reducing foundational requirements necessary to admit results of breath test does not conflict with rules of evidence).
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 888 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 888 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    In a later decision, this court recognized that the 1984 amendment nullified Fuenning’s holding on the foundational requirements for admission of a breath test: *206
  • State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    in support of this argument.
  • State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Warner 812 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (no error where juror related his own DWI experiences during deliberations of a DWI trial).
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Glover 767 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1988
    These circumstances do not reflect merely juror comment based on his or her own experience, , but it is the improper reception of extraneous information not admitted in evidence.