Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrison, 985 P.2d 513.

81 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Because the court’s reasoning in precluding the evidence did not address fully both the nature and scope of Searight’s theory of relevance, we cannot defer to its conclusion that any relevance of the seat belt evidence would be outweighed by “a significant risk of confusing the jury.”2 (in weighing probative value against prejudicial impact, appellate court views evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect” ()).
State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cardoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Because the trial court is in the best position to judge the admissibility of proffered testimony, we review most evidentiary claims on a discretionary standard.”); ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The superior court was “best position[ed] to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998), aff’d
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trial judges are “in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998).
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Voge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In reviewing such a determination, this court views the challenged evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998).
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
403; ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.”).
State v. Cuevas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cuevas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We view “the evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial 10 STATE v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court effect.” opinion approved of, (internal citations omitted).
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The trial court is afforded broad discretion in deciding admissibility because it “is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998).
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This Court views “the evidence in the ‘light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect[.]’” ¶ 5 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 21 (App. 1998)).
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
(alteration in Connor ) (quoting State v. Harrison , , ¶ 21, )).
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998), aff’d
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Because the trial court is in the best position to balance probative value against unfair prejudice, it is accorded “broad discretion in deciding the admissibility.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (citing Via, 146 Ariz. at 122).
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We view the disputed evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Additionally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining if evidence is admissible because the court “is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 39, ( ¶ 21, ).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
3 STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court effect,’”
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
After all, evidence which is relevant and material will generally be adverse to the opponent.”); ¶ 21, (noting that the “trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice”).