Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Holden, 352 P.2d 705.

79 citing documents.

State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Grewal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
t latitude in his questions which seek to impeach an adverse witness being examined and it is always proper to inquire as to the motive of the adverse witness in testifying and to show any matter which bears on the credibility of that 6 STATE v. GREWAL Decision of the Court witness.”
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
And “if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, prejudice, promise or hope of reward, it is error and will be ground for a new trial.” (citations omitted).
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Munguia v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[A] party against whom a witness is produced has a right to show everything which may in the slightest degree affect [the witness’s] credibility.”); see also Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, (“We will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence unl
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
McElyea , 130 Ariz. at 187 , 635 P.2d at 172 , quoting State v. Holden , , 55
State v. Licon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Licon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶18 The scope of “cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge; nevertheless, if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, prejudice, promise or hope of reward, it is error and will be ground for a new trial.”
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
1105 ; , (“if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, prejudice, promise or hope of reward, it is error”)
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-11 (1960) (juror’s reading of portions of “California Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases” to other jurors did not result in prejudice because it made her “more considerate and more fair to the defendant”); , rev’d on other grounds
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
607, 17A A.R.S.; , (“ ‘[A] party against whom a witness is produced has a right to show everything which may in the slightest degree affect [the witness’s] credibility.” ’)
State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Cornell 845 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-11 (1960); , , rev’d on other grounds, , United States v. Steele, 785 F.2d 743, 748-49 (9th Cir.1986).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-88515 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-88515 678 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1984
State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
Appellant argues this action constitutes reversible error since “great latitude should be allowed in the cross-examination of an accomplice or co-defendant who has turned State's evidence and testifies on behalf of the State on a trial of his co-defendant.”
State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
State v. McDaniel 617 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1980
State v. McDaniel 617 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1980
* * * “While it is true that the extent of such cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge; nevertheless, if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, prejudice, promise or hope of reward, it is error and will be ground for a new trial, (citations omitted).” -55 , -14 (1960).
State v. Dunlap 608 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dunlap 608 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1980
State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
On the issue of right to cross-examine the prosecuting witness as to motive, see Annot., 62 A.L.R.2d 610 (1958)
State v. Turrentine 592 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Turrentine 592 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 587 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1978
In support of this argument
State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
****** “While it is true that the extent of such cross-examination is with the sound discretion of the trial judge; nevertheless, if the trial judge has excluded testimony which would clearly show bias, interest, favor, hostility, prejudice, promise or hope of reward, it is error and will be ground for a new trial, [citations omitted]” -55 , -714 (1960).
State v. Bishop 576 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1978
State v. Bishop 576 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1978
the conversation alone with the prosecutor here was initiated by the appellant, and the state offered independent evidence of what took place between appellant and the prosecutor.
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Little, supra; State v. Torres, supra
State v. Annis 561 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1976
State v. Annis 561 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1976
State v. Edwards 529 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1974
State v. Edwards 529 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1974
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1973
* * * ” 55 , 714 (1960).
State v. Taylor 512 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taylor 512 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1973
We said, for example, , that “a party against whom a witness is produced has a right to show everything which may in the slightest degree affect his credibility.” The rule is especially applicable where the witness is an accomplice testifying for the state, Holden, supra, 88 Ariz. at 55 , 352 P.2d at 714 .
State v. Galvan 495 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1972