Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894.

84 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Before the rule changed, our supreme court held that “[p]olygraph evidence is deemed inadmissible because it is unreliable and the trier of fact has a tendency to treat such evidence as conclusive on the issue of guilt.” -79, -98 (1962).
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Logerquist, 196 Ariz. at 489, ¶ 57, 1 P.3d at 132 ; -80 , -98 (1962).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 10 The Frye test of “general acceptance” , a case also involving the admission of results of a polygraph test administered to the defendant but introduced by the state pursuant to the parties’ pre-test stipulation.
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Criticized Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
(precluding polygraph evidence for its failure to gain general acceptance).
State v. Johnson 922 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1996
State v. Johnson 922 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1996
-202 , -99 (1982); -80 , -98 (1962).
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
-202 , -88 (1982); -80 , -98 (1962).
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
P.2d 97 (1979) (breathalyzer) , (polygraph) , (dog tracking).
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
(concluding that lie detector tests have not been accorded such recognition).
State v. Litzau 377 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kinkade 709 P.2d 884 Ariz. 1985
State v. Kinkade 709 P.2d 884 Ariz. 1985
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hyder v. Superior Court 617 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1980
Hyder v. Superior Court 617 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1980
the Arizona Supreme Court has consistently taken the position that polygraph evidence is inadmissible except by stipulation.
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Longoria 596 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Longoria 596 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
the state, Pasillas and Pasillas’ attorney entered into a written stipulation providing for Pasillas’ submission to a lie detector test and the subsequent admission at trial of the test results.
Scales v. City Court of City of Mesa 594 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1979
Scales v. City Court of City of Mesa 594 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1979
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
229 , 24 L.Ed.2d 188 (1969)
State v. Molina 573 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Molina 573 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
The state argues that the appellee having signed a consent for the polygraph examination and his attorney having signed a stipulation on his behalf, , has been satisfied.
Justice v. City of Casa Grande 567 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Justice v. City of Casa Grande 567 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 19 Ariz.App.
State v. Villagrana 564 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Villagrana 564 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
The state’s contention that evidence of appellant’s failure of a polygraph test provided “conclusive proof” , and its qualifying requirement that if such evidence is admitted the jury should be instructed that the result tends neither to prove nor disprove any element of the crime charged but at most tends only to indicate that at the time of the examination defendant was not telling the truth.
State v. Marquez 558 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1976
State v. Marquez 558 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1976

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by