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. Jacobs, 382 P.2d 683.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Distinguished State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See, (officer testified that a “mug shot” of the defendant was shown to witnesses); (trial testimony that the defendant was an “ex-convict”).
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    403, 17A A.R.S.; , (prejudicial error to admit mug shot and tell jury photo taken before crime committed); , (error to suggest criminal record or use term “mug shot”); , (same).
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Defendant contends that the mere mention of “mug shot” is fundamental error, requiring reversal regardless of the failure to object or otherwise afford the trial court an opportunity to cure the error, citing: , , and State v. Cumbo, 9 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Cross 600 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Cross 600 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Winters 556 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Winters 556 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wilson 555 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
    al. In that case, even though the mug shot was not shown to the jury, we held that the use of the term by the police officer was re *190 versible error, stating the words ‘mug shot’ could lead the jury to only one conclusion — that the defendant had been previously arrested: ‘The testimony of the officer using the term “mug shot” was prejudicial error which requires a new trial.’
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fish 508 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1973
    it was held that reference by a state’s witness to a mug shot of the defendant was prejudicial error because the reference implied a prior criminal conviction.
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
    In that case, even though the mug shot was not shown to the jury, we held that the use of the term by the police officer was reversible error, stating the words “mug shot” could lead the jury to only one conclusion — that the defendant had been previously arrested: “The testimony of the officer using the term ‘mug shot’ was prejudicial error which requires a new trial.”
  • State v. Cumbo 451 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Cumbo 451 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    see also Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C.
  • State v. Vassar 439 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Vassar 439 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • 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 alleged prior theft.
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Neil 428 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. White 416 P.2d 597 Ariz. 1966
    is like Gallagher in that the fault of a witness’ reference to mug shots of defendant was that this prejudicially implied a previous and separate criminal record.
  • State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Farmer 400 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1965
    wherein we held that reference to a police photograph of a defendant by a state’s witness in a criminal trial was prejudicial error as implying a prior criminal conviction.
  • State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Curry 398 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Ybarra 398 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1965
    We have recently held, , that the term "mug shot” is equally as prejudicial as the reference to a penitentiary photograph.
  • State v. Curry 398 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Gallagher 396 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Smith 393 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Smith 393 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1964
    The introduction of the addict form confronts us with a , .
  • State v. Francis 386 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Francis 386 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1963