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. Kaiser, 508 P.2d 74.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (“As a general rule evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof.”).
  • State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    State v. Kaiser , , 246, , 76 (1973), quoting Peterson v. Sundt , , 318
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Haddad v. Geegieh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (citations omitted) (“As a general rule evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof showing that the excluded evidence would be admissible and relevant.”).
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
    ¶43 An offer of proof is not required if “it is obvious what the answer of the witness will be or what the proof will be,” or the relevancy and materiality of the excluded evidence is apparent
  • State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
    103(a)(2); (“As a general rule evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof showing that the excluded evidence would be admissible and relevant.”).
  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
    Unlike cases in which no offer of proof is necessary because the content of the excluded evidence is obvious, nothing in this record hints at what the expert’s response to the juror’s question would have been.
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
    M. UDALL, J. LIVERMORE, P. ESCHER and G. MCILVAIN, ARIZONA PRACTICE: LAW OF EVIDENCE § 83 at 172 (3d ed. 1991).
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    See rule 103(a)(2), Arizona Rules of Evidence; , (“As a general rule evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof showing that the excluded evidence would be admissible and relevant.”).
  • Horan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Horan v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 806 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    our supreme court reversed a criminal conviction because the trial court wrongly excluded the testimony of a character witness.
  • Marriage of Molloy v. Molloy 761 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Marriage of Molloy v. Molloy 761 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    While evidence of good character is substantive and the jury must be given an opportunity to consider any such evidence, , such was the case here.
  • State v. Altamirano 569 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Altamirano 569 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Treadaway 568 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1977
  • Greco v. Manolakos 539 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Greco v. Manolakos 539 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Kiser 529 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kiser 529 P.2d 215 Ariz. 1974
    This court, on 28 May 1973, in the case of State v. Kaiser (sic), , reversed the defendant’s prior felony conviction and remanded the matter “to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The trial court subsequently "dismissed, *317 wiping out any prior felony conviction.