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. Alexander, 503 P.2d 777.

50 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ng at which victim addressed 4 circumstances surrounding his observation of offender at time of crime, victim’s identification of defendant allowed at trial even though victim “had been unable to identify the defendant in a photo lineup or in a live lineup” before trial and had selected another person in the live lineup); (comments made to witnesses that they had “selected the wrong photo” in photographic lineup one of multiple, relevant factors contributing to finding of “illegal,” unduly sugge
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    at 176 , 552 P.2d at 463 , , (also a case involving admission of an absent witness’s testimony at a prior hearing, involving confrontation rights).
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • 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
    (fact that client has consulted an attorney, the dates and places of his visits, and similar matters are outside the attorney-client privilege).
  • State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Medina 875 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1994
    at 2543 , the state should make “an actual showing through competent evidence, sufficient to convince the court that the witness in fact cannot be produced.”
  • Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Archie 831 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Archie 831 P.2d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    The affidavit of a prosecutor is insufficient, , because the good-faith effort must be proven by “competent evidence, sufficient to convince the court that the witness in fact cannot be produced.” Id.
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 777 P.2d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 665 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
    (photographic identification procedure held unnecessarily suggestive where out of the 17 photos shown the witness, only the two depicting the defendant had been altered to include a mustache and goatee); Styers v. Smith, 659 F.2d 293 (2d Cir.1981) (photographic identification procedure held unnec
  • Granger v. Wisner 656 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1982
  • Granger v. Wisner 656 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1982
    1 M. Udall & J. Liver-more, Arizona Practice, Law of Evidence § 74, 137-38 (2d ed. 1982).
  • State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1979
    1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968)
  • State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1978
    this court held that a conviction for robbery while armed with a gun required proof only that a gun was under the immediate control of the defendant and available for use in the crime.
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    our Supreme Court held that a good faith effort to produce a missing witness “must be proven by evidence consisting of, at the very least, a subpoena which has been duly issued and returned unsatisfied, and, more desirably, of the sworn testimony of the authorities charged with the duty of servi
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Streyar 583 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Moreover, , the statute in question “is written in the disjunctive: ‘ * * * gun or deadly weapon * * *.’ Although a gun can be a deadly weapon, the statute requires only a gun and there is no requirement that it be loaded.” The judgments of guilt on counts one and four of the indictment are revers
  • State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Hall 586 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Ratzlaff 552 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Ratzlaff 552 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Arnold 549 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Arnold 549 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Because we hold that appellant waived his objections to the in-court identification, we need not determine whether the prosecutor’s conduct in the current case might have been improper
  • State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Wehrhan 542 P.2d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Camargo 537 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Camargo 537 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Lee 519 P.2d 56 Ariz. 1974
    Simmons, supra, as well as prior decisions of this court, , , , have indicated that there is great danger in an identification procedure that is so suggestive as to result in misidentification.