Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Doody, 930 P.2d 440.
-
State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Nolan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
The cases cited by Nolan for this proposition rely directly or indirectly on Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980).5 See Fisher, 141 Ariz. at 243
- State v. Madril Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
State v. Madril
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-69 (App. 1996) (concluding a thirteen-hour interview of a minor without significant breaks, although “troublesome,” did not alone establish that officers overcame the suspect’s will).
- State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Baltierrez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The court must also consider the juvenile’s prior experience, if any, with the legal system, ¶ 59 (2002), as well as the juvenile’s “demeanor” during questioning
- State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Rogers
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
s “if immunized, would offer evidence that was clearly exculpatory and essential to the defense’s case” sufficient to “trigger” a due process imperative to immunize the witness); (concluding no basis to compel immunity for a defense witness absent evidence that the witness’s testimony was both “clearly exculpatory and essential”)
- State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
State v. Ricci
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The superior court “exercises considerable discretion in determining the proper extent of cross-examination, and we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a clear showing of prejudice.”
- State v. Hamwright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Hamwright
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶17 Although the right of cross-examination is essential to the right of confrontation, the superior court retains discretion “to curtail the scope of cross-examination to within reasonable limits.” (quotation omitted).
- State v. Licon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Licon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Johnson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining the proper extent of cross-examination, and we will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a clear showing of prejudice.”
- State v. Leyba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Leyba
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review the restriction of the scope of cross-examination “on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the court unduly inhibited the defendant’s ability to present information bearing on issues or on the credibility of witnesses.”
- State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
-
State v. Martinez
189 P.3d 348
Ariz. 2008
a showing that the witness would present clearly exculpatory evidence and that the state has no strong interest in withholding immunity.”
- State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
-
State v. Newell
132 P.3d 833
Ariz. 2006
(stating that a thirteen hour interrogation, without significant breaks, does not prove, by itself, that the defendant’s will to resist confessing was overcome).
- In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
- In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
- State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
- State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
- State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-
State v. Cox
37 P.3d 437
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“Although the right to cross-examine a witness is vital to the right of confrontation, the trial court reserves discretion to curtail the scope of cross-examination to within reasonable limits.”
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan 35 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
-
State v. Mills
995 P.2d 705
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Moreover, “[t]he state exercises sole discretion in granting immunity to witnesses.”
- State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998