DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ybarra, 398 P.2d 905.

44 citing documents.

  • State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “[T]o reverse a case, the error must be prejudicial under the facts of the case under consideration.”
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • 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
    no objection was made to the “mug shot” reference, but whether an objection was necessary was not decided.
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
    P.2d 905 (1965); , P.2d 752 (1965)
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Childs 553 P.2d 1192 Ariz. 1976
    P.2d 905 (1965); State v. Zumwalt, supra.
  • State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Smith 515 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1973
    There are occasions when the reference to a mug shot is not prejudicial error when the defendant takes the stand and admits a prior record [ , ] or when the defense itself introduces the material or elicits the testimony bringing out that the photographs are “mug shots” [ , ].
  • State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Brewer 514 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1973
    In Saenz we stated: “We note that the same narcotics agent, Officer Madrid, , used language which tended to link the defendant to a different crime from that charged.
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Colson 499 P.2d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Branch 498 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1972
    and State v. Zumwalt, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Deschamps 468 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Brady 461 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Hickson 450 P.2d 408 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Sianez 447 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Sianez 447 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Pine 446 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Pine 446 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    * * * ” , That case stated that the “change in outcome” test is dependent on an examination of the entire record.
  • State v. Sanders 441 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Sanders 441 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Vassar 439 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    This court has held the test to be: had the error not been committed was there reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different.”
  • State v. Vassar 439 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    The facts in the instant case are different from those in the Jacobs case, supra, in which we held the reference to ‘mug picture’ to be prejudicial error.” 203
  • State v. Perry 426 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Perry 426 P.2d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    This court has held the test to be: had the error not been committed there was reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different.”
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Mendez 406 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Saenz 403 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
    We note that the same narcotics agent, Officer Madrid, , *185 used language which tended to link the defendant to a different crime from that charged.