Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ayala, 873 P.2d 1307.

52 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dimitri Polanco Romero 556 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
When a lay witness draws a reasonable inference from his “firsthand knowledge and perceptions of a situation,” the testimony is admissible, even if it goes towards an ultimate issue, so long as it meets the other requirements of Rule 701, Doerr
In Re: Ms 2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re: Ms 2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Decisions on the admission and exclusion of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will be reversed on appeal only when they constitute a clear, prejudicial abuse of discretion.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Rohrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rohrer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We review the admission of such evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 25 (App. 2001), and will reverse the court’s ruling only upon a finding of clear prejudice
State v. Carozza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Carozza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bobbitt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Harrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 28 (App. 2003) (“Whether a party has laid sufficient foundation for the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the [superior] court, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”).
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(To require reversal, the prejudice to the defendant from the trial court’s error “must be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about whether the verdict might have been different.”).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Alternatively, Brown argues the court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing “to allow the parties to question [the officer] as to his motives.” “Decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed on appeal only when they constitute a clear and prejudicial abuse of the court’s discretion.” (internal citations and quotations omitted).
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McFadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McFadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 34, (reviewing a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence for “a clear, prejudicial abuse of discretion” (citations omitted)).
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We will reverse the court’s determination “only when [it] constitute[s] a clear, prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Thus, when a lay witness is “drawing a reasonable inference from [his] firsthand knowledge and perceptions of a situation,” the witness is “competent to voice [his] opinion,” , even as to the ultimate issue
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Oman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Oman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Decisions on the admission and exclusion of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed on appeal only when they constitute a clear, prejudicial abuse of discretion.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
A court abuses its discretion when it makes a legal error, but absent prejudice, an erroneous ruling does not require reversal on appeal
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
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Vandever 119 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001