Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Trotter, 514 P.2d 1249.

62 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 31 , , Herrera argues the victim’s sexual history was relevant to her credibility.
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Counsel for both sides have “considerable latitude” in closing arguments and a closing remark is unduly prejudicial only when it “calls to the attention of the jurors matters which they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict.” -94, -50 (1979)
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Scott, 24 Ariz.App.
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Moya 672 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Moya 672 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Scott, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home 619 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1980
Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home 619 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
See, e. g., State v. Sustaita, supra
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Scott, 24 Ariz.App.
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Figueroa 593 P.2d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, , and all reasonable inferences must be resolved against the appellant.
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
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
State v. Sims 560 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Sims 560 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Munoz 561 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1976
State v. Munoz 561 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1976
The facts viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, , are as follows.
State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
State v. Williams 556 P.2d 317 Ariz. 1976
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Marks 546 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1976
State v. Marks 546 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1976
“Taking the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, as we must on appeal,” , we find, the facts to be as follows.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by