DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ramos, 492 P.2d 697.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    607, 17A A.R.S.; , (“ ‘[A] party against whom a witness is produced has a right to show everything which may in the slightest degree affect [the witness’s] credibility.” ’)
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    see also Rule 23.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
    “[t]he jury has a right to know any fact which tends to show a witness is biased, prejudiced or hostile in passing on that witness’ credibility.” The trial court has broad discretion in controlling cross-examination and a decision admitting certain matters for impeachment purposes will
  • State v. Cannon 650 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Cannon 650 P.2d 1198 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
  • Overruled State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
    and that a statement that the “objection is overruled” is insufficient
  • State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Farmer 617 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1980
    however, we held that a defendant should be allowed, in cross examination of a prosecution witness, to bring out the fact of the witnesses’ arrest in the same matter, to show bias or prejudice affecting credibility.
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dunlap 608 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dunlap 608 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
  • Overruled State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
    on the basis of the evidence which has been presented.”); , (“The objection is overruled.”); , (The confession is “prima facie voluntary.”); , (“Objection overruled.
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Castoe 559 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moore 554 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Norcross 546 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Norcross 546 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Harwood 519 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1974
    we said: “The * * * question is whether the evidence presented at the trial showed that the defendant might have been guilty of manslaughter rather than second degree murder.
  • State v. Hart 517 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Hart 517 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Small 514 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Small 514 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    [Citations omitted], # % ‡ % & :*c “The jury has a right to know any fact which tends to show a witness is biased, prejudiced or hostile in passing on that witness’ credibility.”
  • State v. Postell 510 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Postell 510 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Moore 506 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Marovich 504 P.2d 1268 Ariz. 1973
    the trial judge ruled: “Objection overruled.