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. Hernandez, 823 P.2d 1309.

108 citing documents.

  • State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (holding statements not hearsay when not offered for truth of the matter asserted but rather only to show how “events unfolded”).
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ramos 330 P.3d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Our supreme 2 -08, -16 (App. 1991), the State argues that the prosecutor’s comments referencing Ramos’s failure to take “the stand” and testify were “fair rebuttal” to Ramos’s claim of insufficient evidence.
  • State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    In this instance, the offered statement made by Everrett S. was not hearsay, as it was not offered to prove the matter asserted in that statement – Ariz. R. Evid.
  • State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    ¶6 In order to reverse a conviction based on improper comments from the prosecutor, the comments must “be so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial and render the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”
  • State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (“It is permissible to rely on a prospective juror’s mode of answering questions as a basis for peremptory selections.”).
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Consequently, a hearsay objection is without merit when the evidence in question has been admitted “solely for the purpose of proving that certain words were spoken.” , , 1292 (App. 1983); , (holding statements not hearsay where “they only showed how events unfolded”).
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (assuming trial court found defendant had made a prima facie case where trial court asked state to explain its strikes).
  • State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    -07 , -15 (App.1991); , (hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause are not the same and serve different purposes).
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
    Trostle, 191 Ariz. at 12 , 951 P.2d at 877
  • State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Although the challenged venireman’s status as a member of a cognizable racial group satisfied one element of a prima facie case, , the defendant was still obligated to show “facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to exclude a juror solely on account of race.”
  • State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “Words offered to prove the effect on the hearer are admissible when they are offered to show their effect on one whose conduct is at issue.” , , (“[I]ri some circumstances out-of-court declarations will not be excluded as hearsay when they are not.
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that an objection to testimony as cumulative did not preserve a claim of error on the ground of probing work product); -07 , -15 (App.1991) (holding that a hearsay objection did not preserve a claim of error based on the Confrontation Clause).
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    The trial court implicitly determined that the defendant had made a prima facie showing that the strikes were made for discriminatory reasons, , and ordered the state to explain them.
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    -07 , -15 (App.1991) (hearsay objection did not preserve issue that testimony violated Confrontation Clause).
  • State v. Strong 875 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Strong 875 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (objections to insufficient foundation and form of the *409 question failed to preserve on appeal issue that testimony was beyond scope of permissible expert testimony); -07 , -15 (App.1991) (hearsay objection did not preserve issue that testimony violated confrontation clause).
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993