Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Barger, 810 P.2d 191.
- State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
State v. Wooten
972 P.2d 993
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
801(d)(2) (admission by party-opponent is not hearsay); -67 , -95 (App.1990) (holding inadmissible defendant’s self-serving, exculpatory statements).
- State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
- State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
- State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Salman 897 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
Espinoza v. Superior Court
886 P.2d 1364
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
we expressed a related concern that a junior officer in the executive branch of county government (deputy county attorney) is given great discretion and power to affect sentencing in a state court while denying to the state judicial officer who presides over that court any discretio
- State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Garcia
860 P.2d 498
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The second part of defendant’s separation of powers argument is grounded in an observation by a
- State v. Pac 854 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Barger 812 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1991