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. Taylor, 451 P.2d 648.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Gertz 918 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Gertz 918 P.2d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    (affirming the trial court’s order granting a new trial based on the same trial error)
  • State v. Navarro 645 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Navarro 645 P.2d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Burris 643 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Burris 643 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    the defendant complained that he was not permitted to cross-examine the mother of the complaining witness as to whether a civil action was being filed against the defendant arising out of the shooting of her son by the defendant.
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    P.2d 648 (1969); , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, Section 115 (1975 Supp.) However, several Arizona cases are instructive on the degree of similarity necessary for admission.
  • STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    Furthermore, , : But, when the misconduct bears an inferential connection with a factual issue in the case, the consideration of the discomfiture of the witness must yield to the ascertainment of the truth, at least to the extent of permitting cross-examination, [citation omitted], and, if the inferential connec
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ornelas 490 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Juengel 489 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Verdugo 481 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    534 , , a bald statement is made that an offer of proof is not necessary when cross-examining, a study of these cases and their supporting authorities reveal that before the appellate court will reverse it must appear somewhere wbat benefit would be attained from the use of rejected evidence in order for
  • State v. Williams 475 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Williams 475 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    We believe the rule is properly set forth in 3 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 950-951; , State v. Cadena, 9 Ariz.App.
  • Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. McMurtry 458 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    State v. Little, supra, 87 Ariz. at 301, [ 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ]; and see United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1957).”
  • State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Cadena 452 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    A , , (filed March 13, 1969).