Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Morales, 824 P.2d 756.

34 citing documents.

State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Flaws in the chain of custody normally go to the weight the jury gives to the evidence, not its admissibility into evidence.”
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶17 for example, this court addressed a petition for review alleging trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to present detailed mitigation evidence concerning the defendant’s post-traumatic stress disorder.
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Chacon instead complains about the chain of custody, but “[f]laws in the chain of custody normally go to the weight the jury gives to the evidence, not to its admissibility into evidence.”
State v. Zeitner 418 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zeitner 418 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
As Wilson stated, "'[b]ecause there was no [physician-patient] privilege at common law, the [physician-patient] statute must be strictly construed.'" Wilson, 200 Ariz. at 393, ¶ 5 ().
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 257, ¶ 15, 183 P.3d at 508; (explaining that a flaw in the chain of custody goes to weight, not admissibility).
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
nguyen/ta v. Am Commerce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(testimony by custodian and nurse on regular business activity of linking trauma code name to a patient’s identity was sufficient foundation under Rule 803(6), even though source of identity is not noted in records); see also 1 Joseph M. Livermore, Robert Bartels & Anne Holt Hamerof
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett 273 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-64, -60 (App. 1991), the defendant argued his name, contained in medical records, was inadmissible hearsay because the records were offered to prove that he was the same person involved in an accident and treated for injuries, but there was no indication in those records how the hospital had learn
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
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Superior Court 62 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“Because there was no such privilege at common law, the statute [creating a physician-patient privilege] must be strictly construed.”).
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
A.R.S., provides that a physician or surgeon shall not be examined as a witness “without consent of the physician’s or surgeon’s patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient.” “Because there was no such privilege at common law, the statute must be strictly construed.”
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
§ 32-2085(A) (1992 & Supp.1998); , (recognizing that “there was no such privilege at common law”).
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County 897 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County 897 P.2d 1352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994