Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ferrari, 541 P.2d 921.

95 citing documents.

State v. Gordillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(explaining that inconsistent statements alone do not demonstrate that the State knowingly used perjured or false testimony); see also Tapia v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 1554, 1563 (10th Cir. 1991) ("Contradictions and changes in a witness's testimony alone do not constitute perjury and do not create an inference, l
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Olaoye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Olaoye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- 21, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2014).
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(record "replete with evidence" of concealment when defendants changed vehicles twice and painted and "partially buried" one of the vehicles); (defendant used false names, shaved beard and dyed hair); (defendant left the state and, upon return, "registered at a motel under an assumed name and listing a false occupation"); (defendant left the state); -52 (1971) (evidence insufficient to warrant a flight instruction when def
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Knowing use of perjured or false testimony by the prosecution is 6 STATE v. MATTA Decision of the Court a denial of due process and is reversible error without the necessity of a showing of prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-4253 are statutorily triggered “on motion of the prosecution,” a trial court has considerable discretion to determine what procedures are appropriate in a particular case, , (holding the trial court acted within its discretion in varying the order of proof) (citing United States v. Halpin, 374 F.2d 493, 495 (7th Cir.1967), -57 , ), even absent a specific invocation of the statute.
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-4253 are statutorily triggered “on motion of the prosecution,” a trial court has considerable discretion to determine what procedures are appropriate in a particular case, (holding the trial court acted within its discretion in varying the order of proof) (citing United States v. Halpin, 374 F.2d 493, 495 (7th Cir. 1967), -57 (1948)), even absent a specific invocation of the statute.
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Smith, 107 Ariz. at 103 , 482 P.2d at 866 (state must actively enter picture to obtain desired information)
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
While prosecutors may not knowingly allow a witness to testify falsely, cross- examination is the appropriate tool for probing the truthfulness of a witness’s statements.
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
Jones v. Munn 681 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1984
State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
State v. Martin 679 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1984
State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Arizona Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.
State v. Fletcher 670 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Fletcher 670 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Politte 664 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Politte 664 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Speerschneider, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981