Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tuell, 541 P.2d 1142.

52 citing documents.

State v. Berhane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Berhane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 Generally, the State “may withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to law enforcement officers in furtherance of the public interest in effective law enforcement.” (citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957))
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A defendant seeking to overcome the State’s policy of protecting an informant’s identity bears the burden of demonstrating the informant “would be a material witness on the issue of guilt which might result in exoneration and that nondisclosure of his identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Grounds, 128 Ariz. at 15, 623 P.2d at 804 ( ¶¶ 17-18, )
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 STATE v. CANALES Decision of the Court exoneration and that nondisclosure of his identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” ( ¶¶ 17-18, )
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
¶17 Disregarding Gonzales, P.2d 1142 (1975).
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
in support of his contention that he made an adequate showing that the testimony might result in his exoneration or that nondisclosure would deprive him of a fair trial.
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
897 , 25 L.Ed.2d 87 (1970); , , Rule 15.4(b)(2), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Hester 703 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
in view of the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Luce v. United States, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct.
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jones, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Grounds 623 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1981
State v. Grounds 623 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
Defendant claims, however, that the court’s ruling had a chilling effect upon his constitutional right to put on an insanity defense
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
State v. Price 598 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1979
we noted that when the state must prove intent, subsequent bad acts may be admitted to establish that element.
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. 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. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Martinez, 15 Ariz.App.
State v. O'Kelley 570 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. O'Kelley 570 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Altamirano 569 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1977
State v. Altamirano 569 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1977
The rule in Roviaro has been applied in Arizona to circumstances where the informant is likely to have evidence bearing on the merits of the case, , State ex rel.
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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
State v. Hinkle, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Perry 567 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Appellant again moved at trial for a severance of the counts with a
State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Williams 554 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Williams 554 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See, e. g., , 213 P. 1011 (1923)
State v. Astorga 546 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Astorga 546 P.2d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
appellant claims that the trial court’s .ruling on his motion “chilled” his exercise of the right not to take the witness stand.
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Jones 546 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976