Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Little, 350 P.2d 756.

155 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
¶89 Relying on State v. Little, Smith argues he had a right to cross-examine Udd to see what facts “might develop.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Second, absolutely barring preclusion in criminal cases is neither supported by our precedent, see, –07 (1960) (adopting issue preclusion in criminal cases), nor finds favor in the Restatement, see Restatement § 28, cmt.
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
under Rule 403.” Murray contends the court improperly precluded the impeachment evidence.
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
State v. Reynolds , , 150, , 615 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Harvill , , 391, , 846 (1970) ; see State v. Little , , 300-01
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
vidence that a key witness was on probation and therefore particularly “vulnerable” to “undue pressure” from the state); -4 (1978) (concluding trial court erroneously precluded defense from attacking the credibility of a key witness by showing that through “his testimony he was escaping the possibility of a penalty of death or life imprisonment”); -01 (1960) (concluding trial court erroneously precluded evidence that the chief prosecution witness had committed crimes and “that prosecution offici
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Prejudice ensues from a denial of the opportunity to place the witness in 6 STATE v. RIVERA Decision of the Court his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test.”) (ci
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland 310 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(collateral estoppel “‘means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit’”), quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970); -62 (1960) (principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to criminal judgments).
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Rather, he contends the other-act evidence should have been precluded because a jury acquitted him of those acts, and such acquitted conduct evidence is inadmissible pursuant to our supreme court’s
State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
this court held that an earlier judgment in a criminal case was conclusive as to all issues actually litigated and adjudicated.
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
at 539 , 448 P.2d at 109 ( , ).
State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
which held that evidence of prior offenses of which defendant had been acquitted was inadmissible.
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. De La Ossa 623 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. De La Ossa 623 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
See, , and State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Davis 619 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Davis 619 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
the court held that under the facts presented, evidence of a crime of which the defendant had been acquitted was not admissible.
State v. Wakefield 278 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1979
Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc. 581 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1978
Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc. 581 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1978
Hing v. Youtsey, 10 Ariz.App.
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Furrh v. Rothschild 575 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The question in the context of a , : “ * * * Relevancy' is thus not the sole test of the admissibility of evidence; ad *255 missibility depends, rather, on a balancing of the various effects of the admission of such evidence, considered in the light of recognized rules of law governing the administration of criminal justice.” 87 Ar
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
: “The witness’ belief that his testimony if favorable to the prosecution will result in leniency or favorable treatment in connection with a crime committed by him is evidence of motive despite the fact that the witness’ belief is mistaken, unreasonable or, indeed, is not based on any words or co
State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Davis 570 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Mincey 566 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1977
State v. Miller 564 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Miller 564 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
A , where the state sought to introduce substantively a prior criminal act of which the defendant had been found not guilty.
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
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Pickrell 545 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1976
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Pickrell 545 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1976
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
State v. Dodds 537 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1975