Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 383 P.2d 862.

56 citing documents.

State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
State v. Featherman 651 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Featherman 651 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Williams 610 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Williams 610 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Johnson 569 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1977
State v. Johnson 569 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1977
“The danger is twofold: First, the jury may conclude that the defendant is a 'bad man’ and convict on lesser evidence than might ordinarily be necessary to support a conviction, and second, that if the door is opened to such evidence, the defendant is in danger of having to defend every incident of an entire lifetime in a single trial.” , -64 (1963).
State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Denny 555 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court 545 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1976
State v. Albe, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
In addition, appellant is in danger of having to defend every incident of his entire lifetime in a P. 2d 862 (1963).
State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
While this Court recognizes the traditional rule that a defendant cannot be impeached by a showing of specific acts of misconduct not amounting to a conviction for a felony, , we have held that an exception exists when: “Evidence of other criminal acts is * * * so blended or connected with the crime of which the defendant is accused that proof of one incidentally involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.”
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
that specific acts of misconduct not sustained by a conviction of a felony may not be shown and cited the prior Arizona cases.
State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
State v. Nevarez 499 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1972
State v. Nevarez 499 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1972
that it has long been settled in this state that a witness can not be impeached by showing specific acts of misconduct not amounting to conviction of a felony.
State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
State v. Johnson 479 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1971
(“The rule is well settled in Arizona that a witness may not be impeached by showing specific acts for which he has not received a felony conviction.”) ; at 305 , at 863 .
State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
State v. Price 477 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1970
“A No.” at 305 , , we said: “It has long been settled in this state that a witness can not be impeached by showing specific acts of misconduct not amounting to a conviction of a felony.
State v. Adair 469 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1970
State v. Adair 469 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1970
At the outset, it should be pointed out that the defendant has confused the principle relating to prior, , , with the acts .that the State sought to show in the instant case.
State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
The danger to be avoided by excluding evidence of other offenses, is “that the jury may conclude that the defendant is a ‘bad man’ and convict on lesser evidence than might ordinarily be necessary to support a conviction.”
State v. Albe 460 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Albe 460 P.2d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Walls 456 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Walls 456 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
State v. Goldsmith 450 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1969
we held that even if there is no objection made to such cross-examination and the witness denies the misconduct, the State may not present proof to impeach him.
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
14 A.L.R.3d 1262 (1965); , and see Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence §§ 66 and 68, at 99 and 107 (1960).
Fiske v. Soland 448 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Fiske v. Soland 448 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Gibson 443 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1968
State v. Gibson 443 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1968
that specific acts of misconduct not sustained by a conviction of a felony may not be shown and cited the prior Arizona cases.
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
State v. Reyes 408 P.2d 400 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
State v. Gallegos 407 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1965
State v. Johnson 396 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1964
State v. Johnson 396 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1964