DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dixon, 617 P.2d 779.

54 citing documents.

  • State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (“The weighing and balancing under Rule 403 is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused.”).
  • Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lattimore v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (stating that the unlimited right to withdraw a waiver of the right to counsel does not entitle a defendant to a continuance through an eleventh-hour request for counsel).
  • State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ("Prior convictions are not inadmissible per se ...
  • 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
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
    See, , -99 , -54 (1984); -61 , -90 (App.1983); -18 , -84 (App.1980).
  • Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Mount 719 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Mount 719 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Rule 609(a), Rules of Evidence, 16 A.R.S.
  • State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
    dibility of defendant of considerable importance, trial court did not err in allowing impeachment with prior conviction); , (where key issue in child molestation case was credibility of defendant and victim, trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting one of defendant’s two prior convictions for impeachment purposes); , (where direct conflict of testimony between undercover agent and defendant was of paramount importance, jury should have before it all information which might have refl
  • 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
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    “Prior convictions are not inadmissible per se on the issue of credibility merely because the offense involved is identical to that for which the defendant is on trial.” , see Sullivan, supra, 130 Ariz. at 217 , 635 P.2d at 505 (prior *285 conviction of possession of a narcotic drug admissible where pending charge was selling a narcotic drug); United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 526-27 (9th Cir.1978).
  • State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
    (“Where the direct conflict of testimony between the [key prosecution witness] and the defendant is of such paramount importance, the jury should have before it all information which might reflect on the truthfulness of the defendant.”).
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    § 13-604(H) has been "reviewed and upheld on several occasions by the courts of this state
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Watkins 648 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Watkins 648 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Milburn 658 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Milburn 658 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    that the trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether the evidence of these prior convictions should be admitted and that the exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse.
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    796 , 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980)
  • State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Woratzeck 637 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Woratzeck 637 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981