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. McFarlin, 517 P.2d 87.

97 citing documents.

  • State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    105; (A defendant’s failure to request a “limiting instruction constituted a waiver of any right to have such given,” and the failure to instruct is not error.); (An alleged error about the limited purpose of evidence cannot be raised “absent a request by counsel for such an instruction.”), superseded by rule on other grounds, ¶ 24 (2004).
  • State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    may show ‘the defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward the particular victim.’”) () (citation omitted); ¶ 28 (App. 2001) (“[A] defendant’s aberrant sexual propensity might be proved by admitting evidence of similar acts committed near in time to the offense charged.”) ().
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
    2 Garner cites cases admitting “other act” evidence to show a P.2d 87 (1973), P.2d 1061 (1977).
  • State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    : In those instances in which the offense charged involves the element of abnormal sex acts such as sodomy, child molesting, lewd and lascivious [conduct], etc., there is sufficient basis to accept proof of similar acts near in time to the offense charged as evidence of the accused’s propensity to
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 10 Rule 404(c) was added by the supreme court in 1997 and, according to the official comment, was intended to " , , "
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    According to the comment to the 1997 amendment
  • State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (emotional-propensity exception to general rule excluding evidence of prior acts); 8 , (discussing emotional-propensity exception specifically as to evidence of other sexually-aberrant acts committed against the same victi
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
    -68 , -69 (1977); State ex rel.
  • State v. Grainge 918 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Grainge 918 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hopkins 866 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    our supreme court established the emotional propensity exception to the exclusionary rule.
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Pierce 826 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Pierce 826 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    The trial court’s instruction was derived from the Arizona Supreme Court’s
  • State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    The propensity exception is specifically “limited to those cases involving sexual aberration.”
  • State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986