Cited by

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

155 citing documents.

State v. Dodds 537 P.2d 970 Ariz. 1975
in support of his position, but these cases are not on point.
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
appeal dismissed and cert.
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thomas 515 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1973
State v. Downing 511 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1973
State v. Downing 511 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1973
The general rule is that: “ * * * in the prosecution of one accused of a particular offense, evidence showing or tending to show the commission by the accused of another crime entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same class, is neither relevant nor admissible.” , -761 (1960).
State v. Hodges 507 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1973
State v. Hodges 507 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1973
State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
State v. Thompson 502 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1972
in support of their position.
State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hays 496 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 157 (1954) [hereinafter, McCormick]; 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 300 (1940) [hereinafter, Wigmore]; , State v. Moore, supra.
State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Little, supra, 87 Ariz. [295] at 301, [ 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ] ; and see United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2nd Cir. 1957).
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
Finger v. Beaman 480 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Finger v. Beaman 480 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970
State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970
86 A. L.R.2d 1120, in which the court admitted in evidence a blackjack and a bicycle sprocket chain made into a blackjack which they alleged had been taken from the automobile on the evening of the narcotic sale.
State v. Briley 476 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1970
State v. Briley 476 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mahoney 475 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1970
State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Little, supra, 87 Ariz. at 301, [ 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ]; and see United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1957).” State v. Taylor, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
State v. Maggard 455 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1969
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960), is an example of where the Supreme Court reversed a conviction when the trial court refused to permit cross-examination which showed that a witness was living in open and notorious cohabitation.
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Though an offer of proof, as such, is not necessary in order to predicate error on the wrongful restriction of cross-examination, , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960), Tate v. Connel, 3 Ariz.App.
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960) and held: “Appellants were not given a proper opportunity to develop fully the possible motives for Wylie’s adverse testimony.
State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
State v. Reynolds 449 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1969
“Mr. Minker: I have no further questions.” , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960): “ ‘The rule allowing great or liberal latitude in the cross-examination by defendant of a witness for the prosecution, with respect to his motive for testifying, is especially applicable where such witness is a codefendant or accomplice of the accused, or is charged with or th
State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968