Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wallace, 399 P.2d 909.
- State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
- State v. Doty 519 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Doty 519 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Rendel 501 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Zarate v. Jennings 498 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- Brooks v. Jennings 498 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
-
State v. Preciado
486 P.2d 226
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Neither can an appellate court make assumptions as to how an effective use of the narrative report would have affected the witness’ credibility in the eyes of the jury.” See also:
- State v. Tages 457 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State v. Tages 457 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Green 439 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1968
-
State v. Green
439 P.2d 483
Ariz. 1968
Similarly, , , we held that a defendant could inspect that portion of the police report dealing with statements made to an officer whose testimony was sought to be impeached.
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 433 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Superior Court
409 P.2d 547
Ariz. 1966
in ruling that defendant had no right to inspect an entire police report during a trial where no sufficient reason has been shown, we said: "We have repeatedly ruled upon pretrial discovery in criminal cases.
- State v. Griffin 406 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Griffin
406 P.2d 397
Ariz. 1965
long ago as 1919, , 100 P. 770 (1909), we stated: “When intent is material, the jury is authorized to infer it from the circumstances connected -with the act; and, * * * the defendant is entitled, where intent or belief or motive is material, to testify directly what his intent, belief, or motive was at the time he committed the act.” , , 268 P. 615 (1928).