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. Cross, 600 P.2d 1126.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    1 , Arizona has, with a few changes, adopted the new Federal Rules of Evidence.
  • State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
    it is clear that a hearing on the issue was conducted ...
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Division 2 of this court reversed a conviction on the basis of a “mug shot” reference to which no objection had been made at trial.
  • State v. Wilson 626 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Wilson 626 P.2d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Dixon 617 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Dixon 617 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    and that the trial court abused its discretion because the crimes of which he was previously convicted did not, per se, involve testimonial dishonesty.
  • State v. Pickett 613 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Pickett 613 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. McClellan 611 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. McClellan 611 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    we specifically urged tried judges, after a hearing on the record, to make an explicit finding that the prejudicial effect of the evidence is outweighed by its probative value before it admits prior convictions into evidence.
  • State v. Ethridge 612 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Ethridge 612 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    Although the trial judge did not make an explicit finding of the rule 609(a) determination, as urged by this court in an opinion issued subsequent to the trial of this case, , it is clear that a hearing on the issue was conducted.
  • State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979