Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ford, 499 P.2d 699.
- State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
State v. Rice
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
She also suggests its preclusion “unduly limited trial counsel’s ability to effectively cross- examin[e] law enforcement witnesses.” ¶34 As support, for the proposition that “a trial court should exercise its discretion in favor of seeing that the accused is furnished with every fact necessary to prepare the best possible defense.” But Ford does not compel the admission of all imaginable evidence favorable to a defendant.
- State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Warner 764 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1988
- Wasserman v. Low 691 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
-
Wasserman v. Low
691 P.2d 716
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
The court held that when the two sections are read and interpreted together, they “mean that the contents of a message may not be received in evidence if the message was intercepted in violation of the statute (emphasis added).” , cert.
- State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Politte 664 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Politte 664 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Dwyer 585 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Dwyer 585 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1977
- State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1977
- State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
- State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Bojorquez 535 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Godinez 531 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Morrow 528 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Morrow 528 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Kevil 527 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Guthrie 517 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Guthrie 517 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Jacobs 515 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Jacobs 515 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Taylor 514 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Taylor 514 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1973
- STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY. 509 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
-
STATE DeCONCINI v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA CTY.
509 P.2d 1070
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Chief Justice Hays speaking for our Supreme Court made the following statement concerning the exercise of judicial discretion as to the granting of a bill of particulars: “We believe that a trial court should exercise its discretion in favor of seeing that the accused is furnished with every fac
- State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Matlock 507 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1973