Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Uriarte, 981 P.2d 575.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Timothy Andrew Parkinson 554 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
¶¶ 20-22 5In precluding the evidence, the trial court expressed frustration that no party had raised the question of its admissibility until the day before trial.
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶6 Community supervision is “not equivalent to imprisonment.”
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶14 We further conclude the record contains clear and convincing evidence the fractures to C.W.’s metatarsal and tibia bones “were committed and that the defendant committed [them].” ¶ 35 (App. 1998) (permitting appellate court, on review, to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supported admission of other-act evidence).
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, State v. Uriarte , , ¶ 21, including the admissibility of prior convictions, State v. Beasley , , ¶ 19
J.D. v. Hegyi 320 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
J.D. v. Hegyi 320 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 8 Contrary to Mother’s assertion, , did not resolve this issue differently.
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See, , (distinguishing Little ); ¶¶ 33-37 , -82 (App.1998) (analyzing admission of acquitted conduct without reference to Little).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
The court overruled Hargrave’s objection, finding the evidence of Hargrave’s arrest with Boggs’s guns relevant to rebut Hargrave’s claim that he did not know that Boggs would have a gun during the restaurant robbery.5 5 ¶ 36, Hargrave claims that no clear and convincing evidence shows that he “took any affirmative action to possess the guns”; Boggs left him at the campsite with the weapons and without transportation.
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
this court addressed whether a parent of a minor victim has the right to be present in the courtroom with the minor under the Victims’ Bill of Rights and A.R.S.
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
See, e.g., Stapleford, 185 Ariz. at 560, 917 P.2d at 703; Roscoe, 185 Ariz. at 68, 912 P.2d at 1297; State v; Uriarte, P.2d 575 (App. 1998) (holding court rules must give way to statutes appropriately implementing constitutional provisions).
State v. Cowles 82 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Cowles 82 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
340 ¶ 2, 21, 395 (App.1999); , 280 ¶ 26-27
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 9 The Victim’s Bill of Rights amended the Arizona Constitution to provide that “[t]he legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, have the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section[.]” Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(D)
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
194 Ariz. at 401, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d at 770 ; ¶ 14 , (stating that the parent and the minor victim have a right “to be present at ...
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Ariz. Const, art. II, § 2.1; , (when constitution, statute, and rules “cannot be reconciled, we give effect to the constitutional guarantee").