Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Saenz, 353 P.2d 1026.

40 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Robert Fischer 392 P.3d 488 Ariz. 2017
urt “will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.” Smith, 79 Ariz. at 39, 282 P.2d at 472; see also McIver, 109 Ariz. at 72, 505 P.2d at 243 (quoting with approval Smith, 79 Ariz. at 39, 282 P.2d at 472); (same).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
If our review of the record reveals “the evidence fully sustains the conviction, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial.”
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hernandez v. State 35 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-57 , -29 (1960) (holding that a police officer’s notes were relevant as prior and possibly inconsistent statements made and recorded by the witness); Parkinson v. Farmers Ins.
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Harrington, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Harrington 558 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Seymour 517 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Seymour 517 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Brooks v. Jennings, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. McIver 505 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
State v. McIver 505 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
we adopted with approval the test laid down in the civil case, , that: “We will not disturb an order granting a new trial unless1 the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjus
State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Neither can an appellate court make assumptions as to how an effective use of the narrative report would have affected the witness’ credibility in the eyes of the jury.” See also:
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Saenz, [88] Ariz. [154,] and State v. Chase, supra.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
we held that a defendant had a right to examine notes prepared by a police officer to determine whether they were inconsistent with the testimony he gave on the witness stand.
State v. Thompson 139 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1966
State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
State v. Wallace, supra; , ; , .
State v. Ashton 386 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1963
State v. Ashton 386 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1963
: “They [the reports] are relevant, not as independent evidence of the defendant’s statements, nor to impeach or confirm the subsequently repudiated confession, but as prior, possibly inconsistent, statements made and recorded by the witness covering the same subject matter which he testified to
State v. Turner 375 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1962
State v. Turner 375 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1962
State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
State v. Bogard 354 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1960
State v. Saenz, Ariz., and State v. Chase, supra.