Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stago, 312 P.2d 160.

46 citing documents.

State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Zappia, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
in interpreting Criminal Rule 128(A), the predecessor of Rule 13.3(a): “By specifying when offenses may be consolidated, there is impliedly negatived any authority to consolidate under other or different circumstances.” Consequently, any misjoinder under Rule 13.3(a) which fails to com
State v. Meador 558 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1976
State v. Meador 558 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1976
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
A prosecutor “cannot engage in questions which cast insinuations without being prepared and able to prove the insinuations.”
State v. Thompson 516 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thompson 516 P.2d 42 Ariz. 1973
Further, after we had that information then Mr. Gregor proceeded to our office and to the Clerk’s office in an attempt to locate a prior, and in fact there was none in Arizona.” While it is improper to ask a witness if he has a prior felony conviction unless the person asking the question is prepared to prove it after a negative an *170 swer, , under the facts in the instant case we find no lack of good faith on the part of the attorney for the State or prejudice to the defendant.
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
The consolidation of the two informations for trial is, therefore, prejudicial and reversible error, (citations omitted).”
State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gilreath 487 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1971
wherein we held it was reversible error to cross-examine a defendant as to prior bad acts if he was not prepared to substantiate the allegations in the event of a negative answer.
State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
State v. Ovens 422 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Ovens 422 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
also involves the charge of obstructing justice.
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
-289 , , we said: "In the instant case, the Sheriff of Navajo County testified that he had appointed Dillon as a deputy sheriff and issued to him a card confirming the appointment.
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
to the effect that a county attorney, in order to impeach a witness, cannot question a witness in regard to prior convictions unless he is prepared to impeach him.
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
* * , , 161: “As to the second question, it appears that the county attorney in cross-examining the defendant asked him if he had ever been convicted of a felony-After objection and discussion between the court and counsel, the question was withdrawn; seemingly, the county attorney was not prepared to pr
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
State v. Hilliard 359 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1961
State v. Holman 356 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1960
State v. Holman 356 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1960
212 P. 458 ; , 208 P. 412 .
State v. Martineau 101 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1960
State v. Sorrell 333 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1959
State v. Sorrell 333 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1959
State v. Milton 331 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1958
State v. Milton 331 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1958