Cited by

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

81 citing documents.

State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
3 STATE v. SUMMERS Decision of the Court minimizing its prejudicial effect.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.”), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999).
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.”), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999).
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶15 We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 56, viewing the evidence in the “light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” ¶ 21, ( ).
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.
State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Harrison, , 985 P.2d at 518 .
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“Because ‘[t]he trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice,’ [it] has broad discretion in this decision.”
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
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
§ 13-702(B) (2001 & Supp.2003); -35, ¶ 32 , -20 (App.1998), aff'd, , -77, ¶ 18 , -56 (App. 1998).
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-4033(A)(3), includes the right to appeal a “sentence on the grounds that it is illegal or excessive.” Petitioner’s P.2d 513 (App. 1998), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999), in which the trial court’s failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the sentencing statutes in imposing an aggravated sentence resulted in a remand for resentencing.
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-4033(A)(3), includes the right to appeal a “sentence on the grounds that it is illegal or excessive.” Petitioner’s , aff'd, , in which the trial court’s failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the sentencing statutes in imposing an aggravated ■ sentence resulted in a remand for resentencing.
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999