Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moore, 495 P.2d 445.

84 citing documents.

State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
(defendant denied fair trial by interposing of over 850 objections plus over 200 other interruptions by the prosecutor during defendant’s cross-examination); , (prosecutor’s interruptions and objections during, closing argument did not resul
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
403, 17A A.R.S.; , (prejudicial error to admit mug shot and tell jury photo taken before crime committed); , (error to suggest criminal record or use term “mug shot”); , (same).
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
State v. Huey 699 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
1143 , 43 *180 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975) (introduction of mug shot or mention of mug shots error where it gives rise to inference defendant had a prior criminal record); , (admission of “mug shot” prejudicial error where jury told taken two months before subject crime); , (references to white surgical gloves found in defendant’s possession as being “burglar gloves” improper as implying that defendant had committed
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
Rule 404(b), Ariz.R.Evid., 17A A.R.S.
State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Roper 682 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the case upon which the court in Tipton relied when it stated that the trial court need only perceive a “visual connection” between two crimes, the facts of the various offenses joined for trial shared substantial similarities.
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Defendant contends that the mere mention of “mug shot” is fundamental error, requiring reversal regardless of the failure to object or otherwise afford the trial court an opportunity to cure the error, citing: , , and State v. Cumbo, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dugan 608 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dugan 608 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1980
le in Arizona has long been: * * in the prosecution of one accused of a particular offense, evidence showing or tending to show the commission by accused of another crime entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same class, is neither relevant nor admissible.’ 213 P. 1011, 1012 (1923).”
State v. Brown 608 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1980
State v. Brown 608 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1980
Although embellishing the principle somewhat, rule 404(b) has not significantly altered the rule existing prior to its 1977 adoption, , and we therefore find the previous case law in this area, where not inconsistent, to be controlling.
State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jackson 603 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1979
1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975)
State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
State v. Holsinger 601 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1979
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
We have also stated that “[misconduct alone will not cause a reversal” and that “a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel for his misdeeds, but [only] where *593 the defendant has been denied a fair trial as a result of the actions of counsel, *
State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Tipton 581 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1978
State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
State v. Denny 579 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Jones 587 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
511 P.2d *569 638 (1973)
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Continuous objections or interruptions by the state may become such a vexatious impediment to the course of the trial that they amount to prosecutorial misconduct and deny the accused a fair trial
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Swinburne 569 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
“Misconduct alone will not cause a reversal, as a new trial should not be granted to punish counsel .
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
213 P. 1011, 1012 (1923); -17 , -47 (1972).
State v. Dillon 547 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Dillon 547 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976