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. Alatorre, 953 P.2d 1261.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See, -12, ¶¶ 9-10 (App. 1998) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting recording of 8-year-old victim’s police interview because victim’s trial testimony about her “diminished” memory satisfied Rule 803(5))
  • State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Giannotta 456 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    –12, ¶ 9 (App. 1998), – 42, ¶¶ 8–13 (2012); see also Fed.
  • State v. Morphis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Morphis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    803(5), as the advisory committee notes indicate: ‘No attempt is made in the exception to spell out the method of establishing the initial knowledge or the contemporaneity and accuracy of the record, leaving them to be dealt with as the circumstances of the particular case might indicate.’”); ¶ 10 (App. 1998) (upholding the trial court’s ruling admitting the victim’s interview statements when “[t]he offenses occurred between November 1, 1994, and March 17, 1995[,]” and the interview occurred in
  • State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 15 (App. 2006); ¶ 7 (App. 1998), –42, ¶¶ 8–13 (2012).
  • State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    We will not disturb the court’s ruling “ ‘absent a clear abuse of its considerable discretion.’ ”
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
    - 4 - to the common law rule — now codified in Rule 404(b) — barring admission of other acts to prove a defendant’s propensity to act in a certain way.2 See, State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 534, 539
  • State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See supra ¶ 6; -12, ¶¶ 9-10 , -65 (App.1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting tape-recorded interview of witness because foundational elements established by trial testimony).
  • State v. Stone 784 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    See, , (child molestation involving the same victim); Garcia, 200 Ariz. at 472, ¶ 3 , 28 P.3d at 328 (child molestation); ¶ 7 , (child molestation/sexual misconduct with minor); , (child molestation); Salazar, 181 Ariz. at 90 , 887 P.2d at 620 (App.1994)(attempted child molestation; evidence of prior rapes of twelve and fourteen year old
  • State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    This court “-will not reverse the [trial] court’s rulings on issues of the relevance and admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of its considerable discretion.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (emotional-propensity exception to general rule excluding evidence of prior acts); 8 , (discussing emotional-propensity exception specifically as to evidence of other sexually-aberrant acts committed against the same victim); , , 262 Ariz. Adv.