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. Treadaway, 568 P.2d 1061.

81 citing documents.

  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    In Montano , our supreme court stated: While the state normally has no obligation to aid a suspect in gathering potentially exculpatory evidence, , the unique evidentiary circumstances attendant to DWI arrests justify a narrow exception.
  • State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Cuen 736 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
    While the state normally has no obligation to aid a suspect in gathering potentially exculpatory evidence, , the unique evidentiary circumstances attendant to DWI arrests justify a narrow exception.
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Spence 704 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    wherein the court held that where the act is not similar in nature to that charged or where it is remote in time to the crime charged (three years or more) the prior act is not admissible unless there is reliable expert medical testimony that such prior act tends to show a continuing emotional
  • State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 631 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 631 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Hyder v. Superior Court 617 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1980
  • Hyder v. Superior Court 617 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1980
    The County Attorney objected urging that polygraph results are admissible only if so stipulated by both parties
  • State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    that the prior bad acts should not have been admitted because there was no expert testimony indicating that the pri- or bad acts reflect a propensity on the part of the appellant to engage in such activity.
  • State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Tulipane 596 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Tulipane 596 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1979
    : “ * * * we believe the polygraph report of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States House of Representatives is persuasive concerning the insufficient reliability of polygraph technology.
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • 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
    the Supreme Court held that: “[i]t is well-settled in Arizona that a medical doctor may testify as to his expert opinion although this opinion is based in part on what may be characterized as hearsay.
  • State Ex Rel. LaSota v. Corcoran 583 P.2d 229 Ariz. 1978
  • State Ex Rel. LaSota v. Corcoran 583 P.2d 229 Ariz. 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
    State v. McFarlin, supra.
  • State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
    in a prosecution for the sodomy-murder of a six year old boy, we held that, absent expert testimony showing a continuing emotional propensity to commit such acts, the admission of evidence that three years prior to the crime charged the defendant undressed and committed fellatio