Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bowen, 449 P.2d 603.

45 citing documents.

John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
John Christian Hansen, II v. Hon. Chon-Lopez 501 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
idence is unreliable and, absent a stipulation by the parties, categorically inadmissible at trial “for any purpose.” (explaining polygraph evidence inadmissible “because it is unreliable and the trier of fact has a tendency to treat such evidence as conclusive on the issue of guilt”); (finding evidence of or reference to polygraph test inadmissible).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 69, supplemented, P.3d 953 (2003) (noting “all references to polygraph tests, absent stipulation, are inadmissible for any purpose in Arizona”); (stating the evidence of, or reference to, a polygraph test is inadmissible for any reason).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Madsen 609 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1980
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Melendez 588 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1978
State v. Marquez 558 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1976
State v. Marquez 558 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1976
State v. Freeman, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. Freeman 538 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Freeman 538 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
State v. Seebold 531 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1975
Knapp v. Hardy 523 P.2d 1308 Ariz. 1974
Knapp v. Hardy 523 P.2d 1308 Ariz. 1974
a rape case wherein the defendant asked for an expert to conduct tests on the sperm sample and his blood and saliva which it was concluded could have, excluded the defendant as a suspect, we held as follows: “It is ably argued that indigent defendants should be afforded expert testimony at Stat
State v. Gandara 523 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1974
State v. Gandara 523 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1974
We hold that this fully protected the defendant and that if there was error, it was not prejudicial.”
State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goldthorpe v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 507 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Preciado 486 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Neither can an appellate court make assumptions as to how an effective use of the narrative report would have affected the witness’ credibility in the eyes of the jury.” See also:
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mojarro Padilla 483 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1971
State v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Gregge 475 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Gregge 475 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
516 , this court reiterated the rule that the State is not mandated by constitutional provisions to provide a “full paraphernalia of defense.”
State v. West 173 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Allen *73 v. Graham, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. Thomas 452 P.2d 512 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 452 P.2d 512 Ariz. 1969
In both cases, , 451 P,2d 27, 1860 (March, 1969) , , we held that the Court, in the absence of enabling legislation cannot furnish experts to assist in the presentation of a defendant’s case.
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969
State v. Chambers 451 P.2d 27 Ariz. 1969