Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

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
State v. Cotham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cotham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶4 Miller first argues his trial counsel should have objected to evidence of the victim’s chastity pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-1421, otherwise known as “The Arizona Rape Shield Law.” -01, ¶¶ 15-16, - 74 (App. 2000).
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sylvester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Duncan 269 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Duncan 269 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We have previously found § 13-1421(A) -03, ¶¶ 17-23 , -76 (App.2000).
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
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
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
(Pelander, J., dissenting) (defendant has right to present own witnesses, including right to subpoena victim as witness).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-92 , -71 (1986); ¶ 27 , (rejecting defendant’s claim that A.R.S.
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Distinguished David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶25 Division One’s P.2d 1069 (App. 2000), which cited Fletcher, is similarly distinguishable.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 28 , (finding that A.R.S.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-91 , -82 (1984) (Rules of Evidence promulgated pursuant to court’s power under Const. art. 6, § 5.); ¶ 26 , (Rules of evidence are generally regarded as procedural.).
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by