Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 644 P.2d 1266.

106 citing documents.

State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
-211 , -97 (1982) (hypnotically induced testimony), reaffirmed and clarified in State ex rel.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
-11 , -97 (1982) (holding witness who has been hypnotized may testify only to facts demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis and only where certain prerequisites have been met).
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
See, -40 , -44 (1996) (applying reasonable efforts instruction in place of Wussler rule prospectively only); -91 , -77 (1982) (applying inadmissibility of post-hypnosis testimony prospectively only).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
(Once Frye is satisfied, scientific evidence is admissible “subject to a foundational showing that the expert was qualified, the technique was properly used, and the results were accurately recorded.”); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Rivers 945 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
quoting M. Udall & J. Liver-more, Law of Evidence § 102, at 212 (2d ed.1982).
State v. Johnson 922 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1996
State v. Johnson 922 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1996
-202 , -99 (1982); -80 , -98 (1962).
State v. Boles 905 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Boles 905 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Baller, 519 F.2d 463, 466 .
State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
State v. Lopez 883 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Lopez 883 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
the court followed Mena in holding that the testimony of a hypnotized witness is per se inadmissible *211 and that such a witness is incompetent to testify about any subject of the hypnosis session, including matters recalled prior to hypnosis.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
-202 , -88 (1982); -80 , -98 (1962).
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him.
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Sherrill 799 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Neely v. Sherrill 799 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1990
[Collins I], supplemental opinion on rehearing, 132 Ariz. at 193 , 644 P.2d at 1279 (1982) [Collins II].
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the state urged that defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of persons previously hypnotized was untimely.
State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).
State v. Sherrill 781 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Sherrill 781 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
the trial court granted the motion insofar as it sought to preclude Johnson from identifying Vogt as the perpetrator of the crime and the state from offering the composite drawing into evidence.
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp. 774 P.2d 213 Ariz. 1989
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988