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. Little, 350 P.2d 756.

155 citing documents.

  • State v. Beers 448 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    1171 (3d Ed.) The Arizona Supreme Court has apparently adopted this same reasoning: “ * * * Relevancy is thus not the sole test of the admissibility of evidence; admissibility 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.” , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    As the issue determined by the jury in the first action was whether defendant was guilty of selling narcotics illegally on the date there in issue, the general verdict of acquittal in that action would seem to bar introduction in the present action of any evidence tending to show the criminality of the earlier alleged sale.” (Emphasis added) , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • 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
    See, e. g., , , , , , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Hughes 426 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1967
    State v. Akins, supra; State v.. Little, , , 86 A.L.R.
  • State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Baca 425 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1967
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 , in which we held that evidence would be admissible on cross-examination which would impeach the credibility of a witness by showing that he has a motive to testify in behalf of the state or against defendant.
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , 213 P. 1011 .
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    This does not mean that you may arbitrarily disregard such testimony, but you should give to it the weight to which you find it to be entitled after examining it with care and caution and in the light of all the evidence in the case.” In support of their contention of error, , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Narten 407 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Cobb 406 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960), , , and State v. Kellington, supra.
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Shook 404 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Shook 404 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    State v. Little (1960) , , 86 A.L.R.
  • State v. Mangrum 403 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Mangrum 403 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Figueroa 402 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Figueroa 402 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Burruell 401 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1965
    In the case of *43 , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 we said: “Evidence offered to impeach the credibility of a witness by showing that he has a motive to testify on behalf of the State or against the defendant is generally admissible as proper cross-examination whether such evidence also tends to prove that the witness has committed ac
  • State v. Torres 400 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Torres 400 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1965
    State v. Holden, supra; , , 86 A.L.R.
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Gortarez 393 P.2d 670 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Gortarez 393 P.2d 670 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Garcia 393 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1964
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , ; , , cert, denied 339 U.S. 973 , 70 S.Ct.
  • State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. McGilbry 392 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Akins 383 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Akins 383 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Locks 382 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Locks 382 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1963
    86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ; , 213 P. 1011 .
  • 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.
  • State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1962
  • State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962