Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Briggs, 542 P.2d 804.

58 citing documents.

Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Budziszewski v. budziszewski/campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“A failure to object to incompetent or inadmissible evidence constitutes a waiver to question the same matter on appeal.”); Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(motion to preclude preserves issue for appeal); (erroneously admitted testimony reviewed for harmless error).
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thus, the objection to G.M.’s presence on the jury was “brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the court that the error was not waived.” ().
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
See, (“Psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent has consistently been excluded.”); (“Arizona does not permit psychiatric evidence of a mental disease or defect negativing a state of mind.”); (concluding that the trial court properly “refus[ed] to instruct the jury that it could consider evidence of defendant’s mental condition in determining w
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Connatser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(addressing defendant’s assertion of a Brady violation and concluding trial court properly did not require the State to obtain victim’s FBI “rap sheet” because FBI “is not under the control of the prosecutor”).
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
P. 15.1(b) (requiring the state to disclose material “within the prosecutor’s possession or control”); (“The prosecutor cannot be deemed to have concealed information relating to the guilt or innocence of the accused, or punishment if he does not procure materials in the custody of the FBI, an agency which is not under the control of the prosecutor.”).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
("The essential question [for waiver] is whether or not the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the court that the error was not waived.").
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
(holding that FBI materials were not within the “control” of the prosecutor).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 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
under the prosecutor’s control.” See, , 665 * (notes of private investigator hired by co-defendant not in prosecutor’s possession or control); , (FBI not deemed to be an agency under the state prosecutor’s control); Kevil, 111 Ariz. at 243 , 527 P.2d at 288 (prosecution witness not considered agent of prosecutor’s office).
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“The essential question is whether or not the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the court that the error was not waived.”
State v. Lichon 786 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Lichon 786 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In determining whether a motion in limine has preserved an issue on appeal, “[t]he essential question is whether or not the objectionable matter is brought to the attention of the trial court in a manner sufficient to advise the court that the error was not waived.”
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Gibson v. Gunsch 714 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gibson v. Gunsch 714 P.2d 1311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Lujan 666 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1983
State v. Lujan 666 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1983
Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Blankinship v. Duarte 669 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Betancourt 638 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Betancourt 638 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
While a psychiatrist cannot testify as to whether a state of voluntary intoxication would preclude the formation of the required specific intent, , this does not mean that an expert witness cannot testify as to the effects of an intoxicant upon the body, generally.
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
Accord, 1 Wigmore, Evidence, § 18(4); , where it was held that when a motion in limine was denied, evidentiary points on appeal are preserved without an objection having been made during the trial.
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Distinguished State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-7 (1975), he was not obligated to object where the motion in limine had been granted.
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Narten, supra; State v. Schantz, supra.
State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
State v. Ellerson 609 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1980
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979