DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

84 citing documents.

  • State v. Goldsmith 542 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1975
  • Followed State v. Goldsmith 542 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Freeman 538 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Freeman 538 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    and its successors, it is error, absent stipulation of the parties, to refer at trial to polygraph examinations.
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
    nce the opposing party shall have the right to cross-examine the examiner respecting: a. the examiner’s qualifications and training; b. the conditions under which the test was administered; c. the limitations of and possibilities for error in the technique of polygraphic interrogation; and d. at the discretion of the trial judge, any other matter deemed pertinent to the inquiry.”
  • State v. Wilder 529 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Wilder 529 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Gandara 523 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Gandara 523 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1974
    (citations omitted) Further, it is uniformly held that a defendant is not permitted to introduce evidence of his willingness to take a lie-detector test, (citations omitted) Nor can a defendant's refusal to submit to a polygraphic interrogation be shown by -the state directly, (citation omitted), or indirectly, (citation omitted).” , -897 (1962), And: “There is no question but that evidence of, or reference to, a polygraph test is inadmissible for any reason.
  • State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
  • 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. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Trotter 514 P.2d 1249 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Bush 512 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Bush 512 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1973
  • Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Tosatto 485 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tosatto 485 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Goodloe 483 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Goodloe 483 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
    After sentencing defendant the court made the following statement to the attorney for defendant “I just believe he robbed somebody else with a knife.” Defendant’s second contention that the superior court erred by allowing the results of polygraph to determine defendant’s , in that the County Attorney failed to agree to such stipulation is without merit.
  • State v. Forgan 455 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Forgan 455 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1969
    is the leading case in Arizona on the admissibility of lie detector evidence.
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
    This Court has approved the admissibility of results from lie detector tests in criminal cases, but only when the parties have expressly stipulated to their admission
  • State v. Sneed 403 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sneed 403 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Boodry 394 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Boodry 394 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1964