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. Ritchey, 490 P.2d 558.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “[A]n exhibit is admissible when it has been identified as being the same object about which testimony is given and when it is stated to be in substantially the same condition as at the time of the occurrence in question.” -57 (1971).
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Polk v. Hon. hancock/spicer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    unless a defendant can offer proof of actual change in evidence, or show that the evidence has, indeed, been tampered with, such evidence will be admissible.”
  • State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 10 , and Le Noble , which it argues support its request for a limited remand to determine whether Innes knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.
  • State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
    unless a defendant can offer proof of actual change in the evidence, or show that the evidence has, indeed, been tampered with.”
  • State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (concluding that the “burden of coming forth and asserting one’s own basic constitutional rights cannot be placed upon persons who may be reluctant to take such affirmative action before the court”).
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    (statements by children with altered demeanors made forty-five minutes after returning home admissible); , (child’s statement made less than an hour and a half after incident admissible); , (c
  • State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (citing 6 Wigmore on Evidence § 1750 (3d ed.)).
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
    (citing 6 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 1750 (3d ed.)).
  • State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Carr 743 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Carr 743 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    See United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.1979); , , , , cert.
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    (statement by six year old 25 minutes later); , (statement by two-and-one-half year old 45 minutes later).
  • State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Moll v. State 351 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Rivera 678 P.2d 1373 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
    (statement made twenty minutes after event admissible), , (statements of children, who are less likely to fabricate, made at least forty-five minutes after the event admissible), , vacated on other grounds 378 U.S. 574 , 84 S.Ct.
  • State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Barnes 606 P.2d 802 Ariz. 1980
  • 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
  • State v. MacUmber 582 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. MacUmber 582 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1978
    : “Under such circumstances, unless a defendant can offer proof of actual change in the evidence, or show that the evidence has, indeed, been tampered with, such evidence will be admissible.” 490 P.2d at 563 .
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Urbauer 514 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Urbauer 514 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Koker 513 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Koker 513 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    relieves the defendant of any duty to make express objection to his counsel’s waiver of a jury trial.
  • State v. Watson 507 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Watson 507 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    *371 Although the minute entry of August 31, 1971, is not sufficient to constitute a valid waiver of a jury trial, since there is no showing that the defendant was present at that proceeding, , the September 8, 1971, bench trial was conducted in the presence of the defendant who was assisted by counsel.