Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kellington, 381 P.2d 215.

56 citing documents.

State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, (officer testified that a “mug shot” of the defendant was shown to witnesses); (trial testimony that the defendant was an “ex-convict”).
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. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
*303 , as mandating reversal under these circumstances.
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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. Serrano, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. Winters 556 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Winters 556 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
“A. I would say three or four years.” It is contended that this line of questioning and the answers imply prior bad acts on the part of the appellant
State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1975
State v. Briggs 542 P.2d 804 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. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Sears 522 P.2d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
there was a motion to strike certain testimony attributing statements to the defendant, the motion being made on the basis of lack of foundation.
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
wherein, the Court stated: “Had counsel for defendant made an.
State v. Fierro 496 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fierro 496 P.2d 129 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. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 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
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
We see no “bell” here that could not be “unrung”
State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
State v. Acosta 436 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1968
Such testimony, it is said, is “like the bell that cannot be unrung or the whistle that cannot be unblown,” , .
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
The defendants submit, , , that the trial court should have, on its own motion, instructed the jury as to the voluntariness of the exculpatory statement.
State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Hunt 406 P.2d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
State v. Chavez 403 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1965
In the case of State v. Saenz, Jr., , , , we held it was prejudicial error for a prosecuting witness to volunteer answers showing prior convictions or information in regard to defendant’s being implicated in other crimes.
State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
that officers testifying for the State should know or be: “ * * * admonished by the prosecutor, that a mention of a prior conviction under such circumstances [similar to that in the instant case] was highly improper.
State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gortarez 402 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1965
his rights were prejudiced, and that his motion for mistrial on this ground should have been granted.
State v. Garcia 397 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1964
State v. Garcia 397 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1964
187 P. 579 ; , ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
State v. Gortarez 393 P.2d 670 Ariz. 1964
State v. Gortarez 393 P.2d 670 Ariz. 1964
where there had been testimony of a prior conviction not introduced for purposes of impeachment we said: “* * * The damage had been done, for the effect of such testimony, having no relation to the crime charged, was to create in the minds of the jury an impression that the defendant’s chara