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. Skinner, 515 P.2d 880.

56 citing documents.

  • State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Her prior statement was non-hearsay, see Rule 801(d)(1)(A), and could be used for substantive purposes
  • State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    801(d)(1)(A); ¶ 21 (App. 1999) (explaining that a “jury may consider prior inconsistent statements as impeachment and as substantive evidence”).
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 8 (2011) (stating it is “plainly not misconduct” that a prosecutor presented evidence that the trial court ruled admissible); (holding “we find no specific misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in calling [the witness] to the stand since the court had given permission for him to do so”).
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Figueroa 737 P.2d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • 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
    State v. Dillon, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Distinguished State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    ” 128 Ariz. at 540—41, 627 P.2d at 691-92 .
  • State v. Cruz 627 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Cruz 627 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
    It is not necessary that a conspiracy be charged, , as long as the record reveals sufficient reliable evidence of a conspiracy to support the admission of the statements of the coconspirator.
  • State v. Acree 588 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Acree 588 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1978
    we held that prior inconsistent statements, when properly admitted, may be used for substantive as well as for impeachment purposes.
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
    but suggested that the prosecutor proceed by first attempting to refresh the witness’s recollection by showing him Detective Hyatt’s report containing his original statement.
  • State v. Bailes 578 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Bailes 578 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Soto 572 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Soto 572 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1977
    which merely changed the use to which impeachment evidence might be put.
  • State v. Allen 571 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Allen 571 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1977
    impeachment evidence may be used substantively; therefore, impeachment evidence may be considered by the court in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty.
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    And, of course, it was at that point, after he testified to that, that I had Detective Hyatt come in, and he testified, ‘Well, yeah, after this incident occurred I talked to Bobby Warren, and that’s what he said; he heard shouting.’ ” , relied on by the trial court, does not authorize impeachment by the prosecution of its own witness in the absence of surprise.
  • State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    The State relies upon a more recent case, , in which a somewhat different situation was presented.
  • State v. Lynch 562 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Lynch 562 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    appears to be directly on point wherein the court held under similar facts that a party may impeach his own witness if such a witness has testified to some fact that is prejudicial or damaging to such party calling the witness.
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    at 144 , at 889 (1973), the Supreme Court of Arizona stated: Once the conspiracy has been shown a conspirator’s extra-judicial statements may be introduced against fellow conspirators in spite of the hearsay rule (citations) and such evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment ...
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
    State v. Lane, supra, , as follows: “In the Lane case, we indicated that while surprise is a condition precedent to cross-examining one’s own witness, adversity or prejudice is a condition precedent to impeachment of one’s own witness.” In this case, Brummer by merely testifying that he did not remember the e
  • State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Williams 533 P.2d 1146 Ariz. 1975
    —admitting prior inconsistent statements substantively as well as for impeachment — have any application.