Cited by

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

60 citing documents.

State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Bauer v. State , , 363-64, ; see also State v. Hardin , , 59, (affirming Bauer 's dicta).
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Bonser 623 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Bonser 623 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
But see, , where the court allows the defense in a gambling case.
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
1790 , 23 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969)
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Lewis 589 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Followed State v. Lewis 589 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Mikels 578 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mikels 578 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1978
Taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of upholding the jury’s verdict, , , the facts necessary for a determination of these issues are as follows.
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
Dorsey v. State, supra; State v. Moore, supra; , State v. Tostado, supra.
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Schmid, supra; P.2d 406 (1965).
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Hughes, supra; , McCormick on Evidence § 157.
State v. Boyles 537 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1975
State v. Boyles 537 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tostado 523 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1974
State v. Tostado 523 P.2d 795 Ariz. 1974
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
State v. Green 518 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1974
There are exceptions to this rule as, for example, when the evidence is competent to prove the specific crime charged, State v. Byrd, supra; , State v. Hughes, supra; , , , or where the defense counsel purposely or negligently injects this allegedly prejudicial material.
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Woodward 516 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Hunt, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Rodriquez 514 P.2d 1245 Ariz. 1973
State v. Rodriquez 514 P.2d 1245 Ariz. 1973
State v. Jacobs 503 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Jacobs 503 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Wilson 497 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
also see, Udall, “Arizona Law of Evidence” § 115 (1960).
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Fierro 489 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1971
State v. Byrd, supra; , State v. Hughes, supra; , * * *."
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. Schmid 484 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1971
State v. Byrd, supra; , State v. Hughes, supra; , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 115.
State v. Brown 478 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
State v. Brown 478 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
State v. Turner 455 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1969
As stated in Hughes, supra: “* * * the law is * * * well settled that evidence of other crimes is competent when it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity and common scheme or plan.” , ; , ; , [ , ]
State v. Rivera 445 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1968
State v. Rivera 445 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1968
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Rodgers 435 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Norgard, 6 Ariz.App.
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
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Newman v. Piazza 433 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Norgard, 6 Ariz.App.