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. Turner, 375 P.2d 567.

61 citing documents.

  • State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (stating 16 The State’s second issue is whether King “acted diligently” in filing her newly discovered evidence claim, not whether she acted with due diligence in pursuing a diagnosis.
  • State v. Carson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Carson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (stating that when moving for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the accused “must show by affidavit or testimony in court, that due diligence was used to ascertain and produce the evidence in time for use at his trial” and “account for his failure to produce the evi
  • State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    the fact that it was incorrect on [one or] the other ground is immaterial.” ( ).
  • Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶22 Arizona case law has defined “cumulative evidence” as evidence that “augments or tends to establish a point already proved by other evidence.” (-21, )
  • State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
  • Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    *518 , (concluding that corroborative evidence tends to corroborate or confirm).
  • Alva v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Alva v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    “Corroborative evidence tends to corroborate or to confirm, whereas cumulative evidence merely augments or tends to establish a point already proved by other evidence.” , , - Generally, cumulative evidence, although relevant, may be excluded.
  • State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Kennedy 592 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • 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
    The test of whether the trial court abused his discretion is “[I]f upon an examination of the record it appears no mistake of law or fact occurred in the trial, and that the evidence fully sustains the conviction, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial.” , -37 (1937); *
  • Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Crowe v. Miller 555 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Sturgis 553 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Sturgis 553 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1976
    P.2d 567 (1962), State v. Renteria, 21 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sisk 543 P.2d 1113 Ariz. 1975
    Rule 32.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure
  • State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    The trial court is allowed a discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, , , and the record clearly supports the trial court’s decision.
  • State v. Renteria 520 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Renteria 520 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    McCormick, Law of Evidence, § 152 (1954).
  • State v. Flynn 514 P.2d 466 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Noble 514 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Flynn 514 P.2d 466 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brierly 509 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1973
    The State argued at the time of the admission of the gun into evidence that it was necessary “to show exactly what the weapon looked like back before any testing or examination was done by the serologists.” The trial judge is allowed reasonable discretion in determining admissibility of evidence, , and although the photograph appears to be a needless repetition of an already-admitted exhibit, we can find no reversible error in its admission.
  • State v. Guthrie 496 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Guthrie 496 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1972
  • Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Dodge City Motors, Inc. v. Rogers 490 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
  • Rodriguez v. Williams 489 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Smith 482 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Godsoe 478 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Godsoe 478 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
    This court will not disturb a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial unless it appears there has been an abuse of discretion, , ; , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969