Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reimer, 941 P.2d 912.

28 citing documents.

State v. Ferrara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Ferrara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶11 To support his claim of error
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
To grant Rady the relief he requests, we must conclude the trial court abused its discretion, and that Rady was prejudiced “sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about whether the verdict might have been different had the error not [occurred].” Id.1 ¶10 to support his argument that Peterson’s testimony requires us to overturn the conviction, Rady has failed to show how the court abused its discretion.
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
See, (explaining that expert witnesses should not provide opinions about the credibility of another witness); –41 (App. 1997) (to same effect).
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
sts and psychiatrists are not, and do not claim to be, experts at discerning truth.” –74 (1986) (distinguishing between permissible expert testimony about general behavioral characteristics of child molestation victims and impermissible opinion testimony about an alleged victim’s credibility); (“Arizona courts have expressly determined that neither expert nor lay witnesses assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue when they merely opine on the truthfulne
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-41, -14 (App. 1997); -51, -80 (App. 1990).
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Boggs, 218 Ariz. at 335 ¶ 39, 185 P.3d at 121; -41, -14 (App. 1997) (citing cases).
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 385, ¶ 11, 284 P.3d at 896 ( ).
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
(expert witness); -41, -14 (App. 1997) (lay witness).
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Canion argues that these questions were improper, , (holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness), and United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214, 1219-20 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding it improper for a prosecutor to ask a defendant whether a Deputy Marshall lied when he testified).
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by