Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hunt, 370 P.2d 640.

36 citing documents.

State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
and State v. Serrano, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
State v. White 541 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1975
State v. White 541 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1975
It is the duty of the court to “review the entire record, ARS § 13-1715, and to afford appropriate relief if it appears therein that there is fundamental error to the prejudice of the defendant even though the matter was not presented to the trial court.”
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
State v. Serrano 498 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Serrano 498 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
the Arizona Supreme-Court stated: “Admission of evidence concerning acts-which constitute other separate offenses, is prejudicial to the accused receiving a fair and impartial trial, (citations omitted).” We think it is clear that the evidence in.
State Berger v. Superior Court in & for Cty., Maricopa 499 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1972
State Berger v. Superior Court in & for Cty., Maricopa 499 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1972
State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Mercer 473 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Verrue 471 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
1 Our reading of that case leads us to the conclusion that the reference to past criminal acts in the Hunt case was so gross and so frequent that there was no way in which the defendant in that case could have been said to have received a fair trial.
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
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. Birchfield 404 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Birchfield 404 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Defendant relies on State v. Hunt (1962), , .
State v. Garcia 397 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1964
State v. Garcia 397 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1964
187 P. 579 ; , ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
State v. Cumbo 396 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1964
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
State v. Kellington 381 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1963
State v. Kellington 381 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1963
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1962
State v. Hunt 370 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1962
Under the authority of State v. Little, supra, and State v. Hunt, Ariz., , the error is prejudicial.