Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clark, 543 P.2d 1122.
- State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-
State of Arizona v. Cooperman
282 P.3d 446
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(failure to instruct on matter vital to rights of defendant constitutes fundamental error).
- State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
-
State v. Schrock
719 P.2d 1049
Ariz. 1986
State v. (Joe U.) Smith, , State v. (Joseph Clarence Sr.) Smith
- Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- Hernandez v. Faker 671 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Hernandez v. Faker 671 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-
State v. Fendler
622 P.2d 23
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
While the appropriate sanction for noncompliance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, , , the trial court “should seek to apply sanctions that affect the evidence at trial and the merits of the case as little as possible....
- State v. O'BRIEN 601 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. O'BRIEN 601 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Starks 596 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Edwards 594 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Alvarado 591 P.2d 973 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Alvarado 591 P.2d 973 Ariz. 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. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Rupp 586 P.2d 1302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Steelman
585 P.2d 1213
Ariz. 1978
However, after the trial, , , decided on 19 December 1975, that the test is whether the information relied upon by the expert is of a kind normally relied upon by experts in the particular field in question.
- Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
-
Gaston v. Hunter
588 P.2d 326
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
our Supreme Court set forth the rule governing the permissible bases for expert opinion: “In the past this court has stated that an expert may not base his opinion on facts not in evidence.
- State v. Hunt 577 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. Hunt
577 P.2d 717
Ariz. 1978
State v. Fenton, 21 Ariz.App.
- State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
- Ehman v. Rathbun 569 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Gambrell 568 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Gambrell 568 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
- State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 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