Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Woolery, 378 P.2d 751.

68 citing documents.

State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
See, -21 , -83 (1993); , State v. Brosie, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984
State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984
84 n. 5, , 757 n. 5 (1963).
Berthot v. Courtyard Properties, Inc. 675 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Berthot v. Courtyard Properties, Inc. 675 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
the court stated that the best evidence rule was misapplied in Lee v. Molinsky, supra.
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
State v. Yee 590 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Yee 590 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
213 , 346 S.W.2d 320, 323 (1961).”); , (statements by shooting victim made within 20 or 25 minutes of the shooting were properly admitted under the hearsay exception).
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
eath acted with that care and caution which would be exercised by an ordinarily careful and prudent individual under like circumstances.” “Where matters are adequately covered by other instructions, it is not error for the trial court to refuse to single out a particular element of the case for special instruction.”
Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Criticized Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc. 570 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Nevertheless, our Supreme Court held, in a decision they themselves have criticized as a misapplication of the best evidence rule, , that only the actual license, or a certified copy as provided for in A.R.S.
State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
the court set forth three prerequisites for application of the exception: (1) There must be a startling event; (2) the words spoken must be spoken soon after the event so as not to give the person speaking the words a time to fabricate; and (3) the words spoken must relate to the startling event
Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
McCormick, supra, at 706; , State v. McLain, supra.
State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
1985 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966); , , , cert.
State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
Yavapai County Attorney v. Mahoney 491 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1971
Yavapai County Attorney v. Mahoney 491 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
State v. Gause 489 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
1985 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1966); , , cert.
State v. Totress 480 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1971
State v. Totress 480 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1971
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Stefanik 478 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
State v. Dillon 448 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1968
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Abbott 442 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968
State v. Superior Court 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968
Rule 142, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , ; , .
State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Payne 436 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Villalobos 430 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967