Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Whitaker, 544 P.2d 219.
- Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
- Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
- Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery
418 P.3d 1081
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whitaker , , 542, , 224 (1975).
- State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
- State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
- State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
-
Seisinger v. Siebel
203 P.3d 483
Ariz. 2009
See Readenour, 149 Ariz. at 446 , 719 P.2d at 1062
- In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
In re MH 2007-000937
189 P.3d 1090
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at 502 , 844 P.2d at 1152 ; , (“The anti-marital fact privilege, as distinguished from the privilege for confidential communications between a husband and wife ...
- State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
-
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen
844 P.2d 1147
Ariz. 1992
-32 , -14 (1982) (decided under previous version of the statute which did not limit the privilege to testimony concerning events which occurred during the marriage)
- State v. Fayle 658 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
-
State v. Fayle
658 P.2d 218
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the supreme court held that the identical instruction on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof was adequate to explain both doctrines.
- State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. Williams
650 P.2d 1202
Ariz. 1982
In Arizona, our legislature has chosen to retain the marital privilege despite this court’s
- State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Benford 631 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
-
State v. Watkins
614 P.2d 835
Ariz. 1980
The thrust of defendant’s argument seems to be that the same policy consideration of protecting the marital relationship which underlies the application of the privi *298 lege to formally married persons, , should operate to extend the privilege to “quasi” married persons.
- State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Canedo 563 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
- State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Toney 555 P.2d 650 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Ulin 548 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Ulin 548 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1976