Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Weatherbee, 762 P.2d 590.

27 citing documents.

State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 455, ¶ 121; (explaining the erroneous admission of cumulative evidence is harmless).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(improperly admitted evidence may be harmless when it is “entirely cumulative”).
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(explaining the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless when the improperly admitted evidence is “entirely cumulative”).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(explaining the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless when the improperly admitted evidence is “entirely cumulative”) ().
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is harmless when the improperly admitted hearsay is “entirely cumulative”); (“Since the defendant, himself, had testified to substantially the same information as that contained in the hearsay
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-05 (App. 1988) (holding prior acts that occurred twenty-two years before trial were not too remote to be admitted at trial); n.5 (App. 1995) (finding a prior act that occurred twenty years before the charged offense was relevant).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, n.5, n.5 (App. 1994) (approving admission of evidence of uncharged rape that occurred twenty years prior to the charged offense with appropriate restraints); -05, -92 (App. 1988) (allowing evidence regarding prior acts of child molestation that occurred nineteen to twenty-two years prior to the charged offense).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
[2] See, , (prior acts of child molestation 8-10 years earlier admitted); , (prior acts of child molestation approximately 10 years earlier admitted); , (acts of child molestation that occurred 19-22 years earlier admitted to show "common scheme" and "ongoing emotional propensity for sexual aberration").
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432 872 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432 872 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-949
Pitts v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
2169 , 85 L.Ed.2d 525 (1985)
State v. Bailey 800 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Bailey 800 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See, , (psychologist testified that defendant was a fixated pedophile *118 with an ongoing propensity for sexual aberration).