Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gilfillan, 998 P.2d 1069.

78 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The purpose of the Rape Shield Law is “to protect victims of rape from being exposed at trial to harassing or irrelevant questions concerning any past sexual behavior.” -01, ¶ 15 (App. 2000), -66, ¶ 10 (2018).
In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
during police questioning.” ¶¶ 36, 38 (App. 2000), ¶ 10 (2018).
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 29 (App. 2000), –66, ¶ 10 (2018).
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The introduction of otherwise inadmissible other-act evidence does not require reversal if the record discloses no reasonable probability the “evidence materially affected the outcome of the trial.” ¶ 38 (App. 2000); ¶ 32 (2000).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 27 n.5 (App. 2000) (“Opinion and reputation evidence may be admitted to prove a person’s character for truthfulness if attacked, but specific past acts of untruthfulness may be excluded by the trial court if unrelated to the instant situation.”).
State v. Canales-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Canales-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilligan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The statute “protect[s] victims of rape from being exposed at trial to harassing or irrelevant questions concerning any past sexual behavior.” –01, ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2000), –66, ¶¶ 10–13 (2018).
State v. Pogue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Pogue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-1421 is to protect victims “from being exposed at trial to harassing or irrelevant questions concerning any past sexual behavior.” –01, ¶ 15 (App. 2000), –66, ¶ 10 (2018).
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 62 (2013); ¶ 29 (App. 2000)
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
When the defense wishes to present evidence of prior false accusations, “the court has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.” ¶ 29 (2000) see A.R.S.
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶¶ 35-36 (App. 2000) (overruled on other grounds).
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 42 (App. 2013); ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2000), ¶ 10 (2018).
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr. 410 P.3d 1230 Ariz. 2018
ds that a ‘defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.’” ()); ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.”(quoting Miller, 129 Ariz. at 43)); ¶ 40 (App. 2000) (“Given that the defendant denied committing the act with which he was charged, it follows that he could not argue self-defense.”); (“It is evident that appellant had completely denied shooting
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 20 “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” , quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[T]he [trial] court has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.”
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In its oral ruling denying the instruction, , which had not been cited by the parties.
State v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Implicit within this assurance is the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance in order to present to the jury the defendant’s as well as the prosecution’s version of the facts so that the jury may determine the truth.” ¶ 19 (App. 2000).
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“We will resolve all uncertainties in favor of constitutionality,” ¶ 17
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Second, a trial court “has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.” ¶ 29
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13-1421(A)(5); ¶ 16, Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Further, a trial court “has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.” ¶ 29
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Further, the court “has considerable discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial effect.” ¶ 29