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. Gortarez, 393 P.2d 670.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
    There, we discussed the problem of inadmissible but responsive testimony elicited by defense counsel: , , we held that where otherwise inadmissible testimony was given and was called for by the question of defense counsel, it would not be considered as reversible error even if prejudicial.
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Wirtanen 571 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1977
  • 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
  • State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ross 540 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Martinez 508 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
    The rule, urged by defendant, , but is not applicable to the instant case for the following reasons.
  • State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Fassler 438 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    State v. Cousins, 4 *254 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    See, e. g., , , , , , , 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 (1960).
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • State v. Chaney 428 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
    1 , , are four decisions subsequent to Dutton which impel us to the view that under the standards established by our Supreme Court reversible error was committed in this action by the admission of the statement in the police report of the allege
  • State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
    we held that where otherwise inadmissible testimony was given and was called for by the question of defense counsel, it would not be considered as reversible error even if prejudicial.
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964