DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fierro, 416 P.2d 551.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Levitt 747 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Levitt 747 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    relied upon by appellant, this case presents no basis for finding an abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
    e court may not be used against the child in any case or proceeding in any court other than a juvenile court, whether before or after reaching majority, except in dispositional proceedings after conviction of a felony for the purposes of a presentence investigation and report.” In interpreting this statute, we have held that juvenile records are inadmissible as evidence in chief, , or as impeachment evidence, , in a later criminal proceeding.
  • State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Mixon 554 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Mixon 554 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Corral 521 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Corral 521 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Morales 520 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Morales 520 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
    this court stated that a juvenile record may be considered by the sentencing judge in imposing sentence, and this court quoted from Commonwealth ex rel.
  • Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
  • Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
    B (1956) which provided: “The disposition of a child or of evidence given in the juvenile court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any proceeding in another court, nor shall such disposition or evidence disqualify a child in a civil service application, examination or appointment.” , (reaffirmed in principle in *51 , ), we held that the record of a juvenile defendant could not be used as evidence, but could be used by the court in determining sentence for the defendant in a
  • State v. Tidwell 499 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Tidwell 499 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • 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
    our Supreme Court very carefully pointed out that the statutory prohibition of A.R.S.
  • State v. McDonald 471 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. McDonald 471 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1970
    ” Judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed.
  • State v. Pickard 462 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Pickard 462 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Caron 460 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Caron 460 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Leon 451 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Leon 451 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williams 440 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williams 440 P.2d 311 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Horton 418 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Horton 418 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1966
    Since this appeal was filed, we have decided that question adversely to appellant, , and we can see no reason to deviate from our holding therein.