Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dunlap, 930 P.2d 518.

131 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
(“[B]ecause [the] defendant elicited [a statement] to show the inadequacy of the investigation, and did not offer it for the truth of the matter asserted, it was not hearsay.”).
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jernigan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boudreau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sp Syntax v. Federal Ins. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
.” Id.; (cross-examination may be limited based on concerns for harassment, prejudice, confusion of issues, witness safety, or marginal relevance).
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶11 Due process requires the State to preserve evidence of “constitutional materiality.” (noting State has duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence “that is obvious, material and reasonably within its grasp”).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-59, -36 (App. 1996) (“So long as some reasonable basis exists for concluding the statement furthered the conspiracy, the ‘in furtherance’ requirement is satisfied.”).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carpenter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carpenter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Multari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
al., Arizona Practice Series: Law of Evidence § 608:6 (Daniel J. McAuliffe & Shirley J. McAuliffe eds., 4th ed. 2008); (“Corruption of a witness is defined as the ‘conscious false intent which is inferable from giving or taking a bribe or from expressions of a general unscrupulousness for the case in hand.’“) (emphasis omitted).
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that defendant was not entitled to an instruction when the specific contents of the documents removed from a file were unknown and there was no evidence they contained exculpatory information).
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-63, -40 (App. 1996) (court will not assume prosecutor intended the most sinister meaning of ambiguous remark).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(finding similar instruction “made it clear that the trial court was not pressuring the jurors to sacrifice their convictions to reach a verdict”).
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by