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. Domme, 532 P.2d 526.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
    Mahone lists several factors which the trial judge should take into account: impeachment value of the prior, length of time since the prior conviction, the witness’ history since the prior conviction, the similarity between the past and present crimes, the importance of defendant’s testimony, and the “centrality of the credibility issue.” Mahone, 537 F.2d at 929
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
    (one of the factors to consider is the defendant’s conduct since the prior offense).
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
    At the time of appellant’s trial, , which held that admissibility was “left to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” Id.
  • State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Noble 612 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Noble 612 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1980
    Because of the many factors to be taken into consideration, the admissibility of prior convictions is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” -66 , -28 (1975).
  • State v. Price 598 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Price 598 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that because there are so many factors to be taken into consideration, any decision of whether a prior conviction should be used for impeachment purposes must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
  • State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
    Seelen, supra; Flores, supra.
  • State v. Ferguson 586 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ferguson 586 P.2d 190 Ariz. 1978
    Exceptions exist, however, for impeachment purposes, , Arizona Rules of Evidence, rule 609, or when the evidence of criminal acts tends to show motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan, or the identity of the person who committed the crime charged in the present trial.
  • State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Wallen 560 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969)
  • State v. Malory 557 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Malory 557 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Waldrip 533 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Waldrip 533 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1975