Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. O'Dell Fowler, 422 P.2d 125.

44 citing documents.

State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, -59 , -35 (1977); , -37 , , 26 (1965).
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1978
82 , 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1970)
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
where this Court reversed judgments of guilt because there was bad faith or connivance and the defendants were prejudiced by the loss of the evidence.
State v. Schreiber 566 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1977
State v. Schreiber 566 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1977
Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 15.1
State v. Lippard 553 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Lippard 553 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
State v. Rhodes 543 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1975
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); United States v. Hibler, 463 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1972)
State v. Waldrop 523 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1974
State v. Waldrop 523 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1974
Defendant contends, however, that the-failure of the county attorney to make known the existence of the knife prior to the trial was fundamental error because it was, in effect, a
State v. Durham 523 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
State v. Durham 523 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1974
In absence of a showing that the defense was prejudiced in the presentation of its case by this admitted late disclosure, there is no basis for reversal under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
State v. Hunter 523 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1974
State v. Hunter 523 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1974
State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
State v. Zaerr 521 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1974
There wasn’t enough there to be of any value so they were discarded.” , or bad faith by the prosecutor or the fingerprint expert.
State v. Jackson 514 P.2d 480 Ariz. 1973
State v. Jackson 514 P.2d 480 Ariz. 1973
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), , wherein we stated: “A number of the state courts also have accepted in various forms the proposition that the prosecutor is under a duty to make disclosure of evidence in his possession which relates to the charges being brought against the defendant and that a conviction cannot stand when the pr
State v. Brannin 514 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1973
State v. Brannin 514 P.2d 446 Ariz. 1973
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) , which held that fundamental fairness requires that evidence favorable to the defense be disclosed even though not requested by the defendant.
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Joseph 510 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
422 P.2d *75 125 (1967).
State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
State v. Salcido 509 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1973
82 , 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1970)
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Young 508 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1973
State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
State v. Smith 482 P.2d 863 Ariz. 1971
State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
State v. Altman 482 P.2d 460 Ariz. 1971
this Court recognized the existence of a broad duty on the part of the prosecution to disclose evidence favorable to the defense.
State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
State v. Maloney 464 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1970
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Counterman 448 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the failure of the State to reveal relevant physical evidence found at the scene of the crime constituted a denial of due process.
State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
State v. Bowen 449 P.2d 603 Ariz. 1969
(existence of a knife found near the scene).
Cooper v. State ex rel. Eyman 438 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Cooper v. State ex rel. Eyman 438 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)