Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Barker, 385 P.2d 516.

50 citing documents.

State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶ 13 Historically, Arizona has permitted trial courts to reinstruet jurors and direct them to continue deliberations when the jury returns a verdict “‘so defective that the court cannot determine whether the jurors intended to acquit the defendant or to convict him of an offense for which judgment could be entered.’ ” , quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
An exception exists when “a defendant must take the stand before he can challenge an adverse pretrial ruling.” see also State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 386
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
out for special instruction the point made by defendant’s requested instruction.” , , (when jury is correctly instructed on self-defense there is no error in court’s refusal to “reiterate, enlarge or couch the law applicable in [defendant’s] language”) ( , ).
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
an issue for appeal, 4 was first adopted in Arizona more than forty years ago in a case in which a defendant argued, in the same vein as defendant argues in this case, that the denial of his motion to preclude the use of his prior felony conviction “prevented him from taking the witness stand and testifying on his own behalf.” Smyers, 207 Ariz. at 316, ¶6 , 86 P.3d at 372 ( , ).
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
4 Correll, 148 Ariz. at 475, 715 P.2d at 728; Allie, 147 Ariz. at 327, 710 P.2d at 437
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
State v. Jessen 633 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1981
It was not incumbent upon the court below to reiterate, enlarge or couch the law applicable in appellant’s language where the jury was fully and correctly otherwise instructed.”
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
We believe the majority rule is sound.” A , in which the court refused to instruct the county attorney to not ask questions in regard to a conviction had some 16 years before, we said: “It is first urged that the trial court erred in refusing appellant's motion to direct the County Attorney to refrain from cross-examining him on a former convicti
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Makal 455 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1969
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
State v. Chambers 428 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1967
1938 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1024 ; , ; , ; State v. Lee, supra; , ; , 299 P. 682 .
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
§ 13-163 provides that if a defendant offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined to, the same extent and subject to the same rules as any other witness; , , we said that this includes impeachment by proof of a prior felony conviction.
State v. Copley 418 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1966
State v. Copley 418 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1966
Photographs of the body of deceased are admissible “ * * * to show how the murder was committed and to aid the jury in understanding the testimony of the witnesses.” , ; , .
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
State v. Mileham 415 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1966
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
State v. Robison 408 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1965
Whether this is too remote is a question within the discretion of the trial judge, , .
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
we said: “Appellant urges that the lower court erred in admitting a morbid photograph of the head of the deceased, arguing that the photograph was repetitious in that the matters depicted could be ascertained from other exhibits in evidence.
State v. Boodry 394 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1964
State v. Boodry 394 P.2d 196 Ariz. 1964
Whether this is too remote is a question within the discretion of the trial judge, , .
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
State v. Manis 386 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1963
State v. Manis 386 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1963
Consequently this court must view the facts in the light most strongly in favor of upholding the jury verdict
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Eddington 386 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1963
The facts must be viewed in the light most strongly in favor of upholding the jury verdict