Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 445.

106 citing documents.

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
rel Romley, 172 Ariz. 11 232, 237-38, -51 (App. 1992).
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
However, he relies on State ex rel Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), , to argue that his due process right to present a complete defense and to cross-examine witnesses entitles him to the records and overcomes both the physician-patient privilege and any rights the victim’s parents have under the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ct. in and for the County of Maricopa (Roper), , ).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Foreman 118 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), , (holding that the defendant’s due process right to access exculpatory information in the victim's control that is "essential” to establish a potential defense or prepare cross-examination supersedes the victim’s right to refuse pretrial discovery request by the defendant).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Dairman 95 P.3d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Dairman 95 P.3d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
P.2d 445 (App. 1992) (at trial, victim’s rights must yield to defendant’s right to due process and effective cross-examination of witnesses).
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), , that right does not extend to presenting irrelevant evidence.
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(Victims’ Rights Act protections must yield to defendant’s right to due process and effective cross-examination of witnesses).
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-41 , -54 (App. 1992) (disclosure of victim’s medical records *260 ordered).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 4 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
(Ariz. Const, art. II, § 2.1 limited by rights granted by federal constitution).
State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(Victims’ Rights Act must yield to defendant’s right to due process and effective cross-examination of witnesses).
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(trial judges retain wide latitude, insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned, to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns such as witnesses’ safety or interrogation that is only marginally relevant).
State v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(Lankford, J., concurring).
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
the victim’s right to decline an interview has been considered absolute.
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
(holding that defendant’s right to confront witnesses includes the ability effectively to cross-examine state’s witnesses).
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
(“[I]f a trial court excludes essential evidence, thereby precluding a defendant from presenting a theory of defense, the trial court’s decision results in a denial of defendant’s right to due process that is not harmless.”)
State v. Blackmon 908 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Blackmon 908 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
(Lankford, J., concurring); State v. Steen, 623 A.2d 146, 148 (Me.1993); State v. Gaudette, 431 A.2d 31, 34 (Me.1981); see also Ariz.R.Sup.Ct.