DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Finley, 338 P.2d 790.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    y offered by the witnesses also was admissible under Rule 404 as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.” But, whenever such evidence is admitted “there is an imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the restricted and limited purpose for which such evidence is to be considered.”
  • State v. Carbajal 625 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Carbajal 625 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
    We are pointed to the language in State v. Canedo, supra, where this court, , stated that there is an “imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the limited use of the prior.”
  • State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    : Whenever evidence is admitted of other offenses there is an imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the restricted and limited purpose for which such evidence is to be considered.
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
    we stated: “Whenever evidence is admitted of other offenses there is an imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the restricted and limited purpose for which such evidence is to be considered.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    290, , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, Section 115 (1975 Supp.) However, several Arizona cases are instructive on the degree of similarity necessary for admission.
  • State v. Dale 544 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Dale 544 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Valdez 534 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Valdez 534 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    where the court held a prior rape admissible under the common scheme or plan exception under circumstances which can only be considered tenuous in comparison to the facts of this case.
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
    Also, we have stated : “When one further considers the wide discretion) left to the trial court.in admission of separate criminal acts, , there can be no doubt that the trial court must be upheld on admitting evidence of the student’s rape.” State v. Fierro, supra, 107 Ariz, at 483, 489 P.2d at 717 .
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Lovely 517 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Lovely 517 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
    this Court, in a rape case, had occasion to again make reference to the admission of prior sexual offenses as admissible to showing the “lustful propensities” of the defendant to commit such a crime.
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
    When one further considers the wide discretion left to the trial court in admission of separate criminal acts, , there can be no doubt that the the trial court must be upheld on admitting evidence of the student’s rape.
  • State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tacon 488 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lopez 484 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Parker 470 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
    we said: “The general rule is that proof of the commission of another crime cannot ordinarily be put in evidence as proof of the commission of the crime charged, , 262 P. 14 ; 22 C.J.S.
  • State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Gibson 443 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Gibson 443 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1968
    d: “The danger is twofold: First, that the jury may conclude that the defendant is a ‘bad man’ and convict on lesser evidence than might ordinarily be necessary to support a conviction, and second, that if the door is opened to such evidence, the defendant is in danger of having to defend every incident of an entire lifetime in a single trial.” , .
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    the statements of a woman held prisoner for several hours by an assailant who had sexually molested her was allowed to be related by a police officer to whom she complained within thirty minutes after her assailant released her.
  • State v. Francis 371 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Francis 371 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1962
    wherein it was stated by the majority opinion: “Whenever evidence is admitted of other offenses there is an imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the restricted and limited purpose for which such evidence is to be considered.