Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hadd, 619 P.2d 1047.

28 citing documents.

State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
(–4 (1977); ); see also Ell, 718 F.2d at 293–94 (distinguishing a trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 615, where prejudice is presumed, from a witness’s violation of a court’s 1 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.3(a) provides that “[t]he court may, and at the request of either party shall, exclude prospe
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“a offenses before being entitled to an instruction on entrapment.
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa argues, “[i]t is not enough to simply fall back on the established presumption that judges preside with honesty and integrity.” (trial court presumed to know and apply rules of evidence and burden of proof), Emmett McLoughlin Realty, (judges entitled to presumption of “‘honesty and integrity’”), quoting Pavlik, 985 P.2d at 639.
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
We will presume “that a trial judge, aware of the rules of evidence, will not consider inadmissible evidence in making his ruling.” Fierro, 166 Ariz. at 548 , 804 P.2d at 81
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
State v. Kempton 803 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Kempton 803 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
(trial court presumed to know and apply rules of evidence and to not consider inadmissible matters in making its findings); , (jurors are presumed to know their duty and we will not presume they ignored instructions).
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
The latter situation is governed not by Roberts , but by cases such as Schlaefli, supra
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 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. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982