Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mangrum, 403 P.2d 925.

66 citing documents.

State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
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. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vasquez 634 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
Annot., “Prejudicial Effect, in Criminal Case, of Communications between Witnesses and Jurors,” 9 A.L.R.3d 1275 (1966).
State v. Wilson 626 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Wilson 626 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
In spite of the great latitude permitted in cross-examination, , , trial courts have properly limited cross-examination with respect to a witness’ ability to make identification in collateral situations.
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
The general rule is that a jury cannot impeach its own verdict, See
State v. Acree 588 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1978
State v. Acree 588 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1978
United States v. Lambert, 463 F.2d 552, 557 (7th Cir. 1972)
Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc. 581 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1978
Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc. 581 P.2d 682 Ariz. 1978
Hing v. Youtsey, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Appellant’s specific contention in this regard is that the action of the trial court permitted impeachment of the Sanders on a
State v. Torres 569 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1977
State v. Torres 569 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1977
State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Korte 566 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
P.2d 925 (1965), we believe that appellant was entitled to ask Kennedy if she had lied to the officers in 1973.
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
State v. McGuire 555 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1976
could the fact, as to which error is predicated, have been shown in evidence for any purpose independently of the contradiction?” Wigmore, supra
State v. Johnson 551 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Johnson 551 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
3 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1003 at 657 (3d ed. 1940).
State v. Reese 547 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Reese 547 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 925 (1965); State v. Banks, 24 Ariz.App.
Banta v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 544 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1976
Banta v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 544 P.2d 653 Ariz. 1976
McCormick’s Handbook of the Law of Evidence, supra, at § 47.
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
our Supreme Court stated: “Contradiction on irrelevant collateral matters is not permissible.
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
State v. Small 514 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Small 514 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, p. 68, § 45 (1960).)
Parsons v. Smithey 489 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Parsons v. Smithey 489 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v„ Mangrum, , > (1965).
State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State ex rel. Herman v. Saldamando 472 P.2d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State ex rel. Herman v. Saldamando 472 P.2d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Since contradiction on irrelevant collateral matters is not permissible, , Hing v. Youtsey, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Taylor 451 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Gortarez 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968
State v. Gortarez 442 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1968