Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sowards, 406 P.2d 202.

68 citing documents.

State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(); possible abrogation in part recognized by McKinney, 813 F.3d at 815-18.
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
(stating that purpose of rule is to encourage discovery of truth and to expose falsehoods).
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
We have specifically said, “[t]he violation of the order of exclusion does not in itself make the witness incompetent to testify.”
State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Clifton 656 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
(further citations omitted).” , , (psychiatrist testifying as to insanity defense referred to prior conviction and it was incumbent on defendant to make.specific request for limiting instruction); , (state referred to defendant’s past convictions in closing argument to illustrate his credibility.
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
as well as information contained in a presentence re *335 port.
State v. Schlaefli 570 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1977
State v. Schlaefli 570 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1977
We have specifically said, *4 “[t]he violation of the order of exclusion does not in itself make the witness incompetent to testify.”
State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
State v. Stolze 539 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1975
we stated: “Arizona has no statutory provision or criminal procedure rule relating to the sequestration of witnesses during a trial, but this common law practice was followed in our courts before Arizona became a state.
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Parker 524 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
“Exclusion of witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion and the resulting prejudice is shown.” , accord
State v. Christensen 508 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Christensen 508 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Rocco 499 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1972
State v. Rocco 499 P.2d 95 Ariz. 1972
a conviction was introduced, the felony status of which was in doubt.
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
State v. Bush 493 P.2d 1205 Ariz. 1972
distinguished from a situation wherein no defenses or strategy had been presented by either co-defendant which would indicate a conflict of interest: “The mere possibility of a future conflict of interests developing by an attorney representing different interests is not sufficient to disqualify him.” , , and Williams v. State (Fla.
State v. Totress 480 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1971
State v. Totress 480 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1971
State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
2060 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1008 ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , ; , , rehearing den.
State v. Adair 469 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1970
State v. Adair 469 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1970
We have on other occasions approved the admissibility of conduct evidencing a consciousness of guilt such as flight, , ; , ; fabricating evidence, , ; State v. Loftis, supra; and subornation, , .
State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mason 466 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1970
State v. Von Reeden 454 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1969
State v. Von Reeden 454 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1969
we said: “As we have previously said, exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom and administration of the exclusionary rule is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and this court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court unless there is shown an abuse of discretion and resulting p
State v. Saiz 454 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1969
State v. Saiz 454 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hunt 453 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hunt 453 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Roche 451 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1969
State v. Roche 451 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1969