Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos, 372 P.3d 1025.

28 citing documents.

State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ony when the prosecutor had no chance to review the expert's analysis, the defense had not disclosed the expert's analysis before trial, and the expert could testify about other issues); Naranjo, 234 Ariz. at 245, ¶ 53 (finding no abuse of discretion for restricting testimony when an expert did not disclose data because the State had "no fair opportunity to refute" the testimony); ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2016) (allowing the preclusion of an alibi witness due to untimely disclosure); Alder, 146 Ariz. at 1
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 15.7; ¶ 9 (App. 2016).
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 15.7(a); ¶ 9 (App. 2016).
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Canales-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Canales-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶7 In addressing sanctions, “courts should consider ‘the vitality of the evidence to the proponent’s case; the degree to which the evidence or the sanctionable conduct has been prejudicial to the opposing party; whether the sanctionable conduct was willful or motivated by bad faith; and whether a less stringent sanction would suffice.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (quoting Meza, 203 Ariz. at 57 ¶ 32); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citing what is now Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 12 (App. 2016) (concluding preclusion of disclosed alibi witness was appropriate remedy for untimely disclosure, despite significance of witness to defendant and lack of defense counsel’s bad faith, because late disclosure introduced a new defense theory and “caused a significant disadvantage to the state.”).
State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chevalier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
When selecting a remedy for late disclosure, “courts should consider ‘the vitality of the evidence to the proponent’s case; the degree to which the evidence or the sanctionable conduct has been prejudicial to the opposing party; whether the sanctionable conduct was willful or motivated by bad faith; and whether a less stringent sanction would suffice.’” ¶ 9, (citations omitted).