Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

State v. Galvan 495 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1972
we held: “A defendant in a criminal prosecution has an absolute right to cross-examine an adverse witness, and if at all within the proper bounds, such right may not be unduly restrained or interfered with by the trial court.” 88 Ariz. at 56 , 352 P.2d at 715 .
State v. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ramos 492 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1972
State v. Briley 476 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1970
State v. Briley 476 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
State v. Lopez 459 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1969
we said: “We are of the opinion that before a conviction of a criminal offense may be sustained, it is necessary that the constitutional and statutory provisions which outline the procedure to be followed, must be complied with, and it cannot be said that guilt has been established in accordance
State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
rosecution for an alleged offense not connected with that with which the person against whom he testifies is charged, and whose testimony against defendant may be influenced by a promise of, or hope or expectation of, immunity or leniency with respect to his case as a consideration for testifying against defendant.’ ”
LeRoy v. Phillips 448 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
LeRoy v. Phillips 448 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
A defendant’s right to wide latitude in cross-examination is the rule in this jurisdiction, , subject to the bounds of judicial discretion.
State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 ; , .
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
And also may the record also show that the Court has refused me permission to go into that.” , .
State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
we said: “We deem it unnecessary to set out the specific questions (see footnote 1, supra) the defendant proposed to ask on cross-examination of witness Deutsch, which demonstrate whereby defendant was deprived and restricted of freely interrogating the witness as to his motives, bias and interest.
State v. Torres 400 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1965
State v. Torres 400 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1965
Annot, 62 A.L.R.2d 610 (1958).
State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Carter 399 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Campbell v. Thurman 393 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1964
Campbell v. Thurman 393 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1964
State v. Shaw 378 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1963
State v. Shaw 378 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1963
we held that a party could establish, by means of cross-examination, the existence of facts of a like nature which tended to show bias.