Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kevil, 527 P.2d 285.

58 citing documents.

State v. Hon. cooper/chambers III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hon. cooper/chambers III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although Chambers suggests the State has a right of access to the victims’ home by virtue of their report to law enforcement, “[t]he victim does not become an agent of the state simply by his cooperation.” ().
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(discovery motion); (motion to dismiss).
State v. Hon. padilla/ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. padilla/ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to disclose victim’s psychiatric records because the victim “did not become an agent of the prosecutor’s office [and thus subject to the State’s disclosure obligations] by his cooperation”).
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“If the jury is as competent to determine the fact in issue as the expert, ordinarily the expert’s opinion will be of no assistance and should not be admitted.”
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Carpenter v. Superior Court 862 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , (a defendant may use Rule 15.1.e to discover materials otherwise not covered by Rule 15.1 at the trial court’s discretion).
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Killingsworth v. Nottingham, 18 Ariz.App.
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
(“[I]t is frequently not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to permit a previously undisclosed witness to testify if the court believes that no prejudice will result to the accused____”)
State v. Cano 743 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Cano 743 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rather, the request for information bearing upon the truthfulness of the officer appears to have been an unfavored “fishing expedition.”
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
on countervailing opinions that victims of sex crimes are no less reliable than other witnesses, that psychiatric testimony on the credibility of witnesses is expensive and time consuming and in any case is of dubious value, and that requiring all such witnesses to be so examined would inconvenience them, invade their privacy, deter many of them from disclosing such offenses, see, , and serve as a tool for harassment.
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
(trial court ruling under Rule 15.1(e) will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
accord, United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541 (6th Cir. 1977); Faircloth v. Lamb-Grays Harbor Co., Inc., 467 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1972).
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Lippard, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Piedra 583 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Piedra 583 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. McDaniel 580 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. McDaniel 580 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
1 , our Supreme Court briefly sketched the history of the problem confronting us, quoting the United States Supreme Court in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Loyd 574 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
State v. Piper 555 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1976
State v. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976
Overruled State v. Dale 550 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1976