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. Hernandez, 437 P.2d 952.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶21 “Experienced defense counsel may very well consider it good trial strategy to fail to ask for such an instruction or to object to such an instruction if proposed.”
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    eprived appellant of a right essential to his defense nor of a fair trial.”); -23 , (“This Court has repeatedly held that if a defendant wants an instruction limiting the effect of certain evidence he must request it, and the failure of the trial court to so instruct is not error in the absence of a request therefor.”); , (when party does not request instruction, “failure to give [a prior act] limiting instruction is not fundamental error”).
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
    (reasoning that one incident “may have been accidental would be a likely possibility, but that two such instances were coincidental is substantially less likely”).
  • State v. Silva 670 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Silva 670 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
    the Court of Appeals held that failure to request an instruction on the limited use of the prior bad acts did not create fundamental error.
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Canedo 608 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1980
  • 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
  • State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    P.2d 952 (1968), the defendant drove an automobile belonging to another person into a service station.
  • State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    we noted that when evidence is offered to prove identity through a distinctive modus operandi: “ .
  • State v. Keith 537 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Keith 537 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Allen 535 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1975
    : “ * * * there are occasions when conduct of the defendant at other times than during the commission of the crime with which he is charged has direct probative value, and, when such is the case, the admission of such evidence is proper even though such conduct might be criminal in natur
  • State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Byrd 509 P.2d 1034 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Biddlecome 481 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    1 State v. Chaney, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Lester 464 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Forteson 447 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    See Rule 51 *475 '(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968