Cited by

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

106 citing documents.

State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
or if precluding the motion would deny the defendant a fair trial.
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
-99 , -85 (1982)(supp.op.).
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the decision in Mena does not apply because it is given prospective application.
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Seidel 691 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1984
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Seidel 691 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Superior Court County of Pima 690 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Superior Court County of Pima 690 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
(Collins I), and the supplemental opinion of the same case (Collins II).
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
Rodriguez v. State 345 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bush v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 667 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bush v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 667 P.2d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Collins v. Superior Court, Etc.
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
this court addressed the question of whether a witness who has been hypnotized is incompetent to testify concerning matters demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis.
State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
(supplemental opinion filed May 4, 1982).
State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
Collins v. Superior Court, etc., , , a witness is incompetent to testify about events recalled after hypnosis.
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
the law provides a witness is incompetent to testify to facts recalled after hypnosis.
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
we set forth the rule that “[i]n cases where the hypnosis and subsequent testimony preceded our decision in Mena, we will not reverse if introduction of the testimony amounted to harmless error.” State v. Stolp, supra, 133 Ariz. at 214 , 650 P.2d at 1196
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Stolp 650 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1982
State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982