Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court, 545 P.2d 946.

53 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
abandoned the common law rule and held that evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct was inadmissible to prove consent or impeach a victim’s credibility in a sexual assault case.
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
with regard to the rules concerning the admission and exclusion of evidence in a sexual-assault case, and it is not inconsistent with other rules of evidence.
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
Pope v. Superior Court, In and For Mohave County, , (evidence of rape victim’s unchastity inadmissible if offered to impeach victim’s credibility, or to prove consent).
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
divert the jury’s attention from the real issue, the guilt or innocence of the accused.’ ” , (quoting Wynne v. Commonwealth, 216 Va.
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
State v. Orantez 902 P.2d 824 Ariz. 1995
-29 , -53 (1976) (holding that generally, evidence in a rape case is inadmissible to demonstrate the alleged victim’s unchastity).
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
aff'd in part, vacated in part, , the trial court refused to admit evidence of Jackie’s prior sexual history.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, SANTA CRUZ CTY. 744 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, SANTA CRUZ CTY. 744 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Cook 726 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Cook 726 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
the court held that sexual misconduct is not probative of truthfulness.
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
to be “fostered by the fallacy that the crime of rape is characterized by a high incidence of unwarranted accusations and prosecutions which rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim.” Id.
State v. Hutchinson 688 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Hutchinson 688 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
which contains the following statement in its discussion of the admissibility of evidence of the previous unchastity of a rape victim: ...
State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
stands for the proposition that the prior sexual experience of a rape victim, whether chaste or unchaste, is irrelevant to the question of consent.
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
State v. Williams 626 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Williams 626 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
refused to allow this testimony.
State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Holley 599 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
when it shows a motive to testify falsely.
State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
set forth the procedure to be used when a defendant wishes to offer evidence of unchastity to impeach the prosecutrix.
State v. Trujillo 587 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1978
State v. Trujillo 587 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1978
State v. Quinn 592 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978