Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mincey, 636 P.2d 637.

103 citing documents.

State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(stating general rule that “where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant,” such party opens the door to the other party “responding with comments or evidence on the same subject”); –05 (1981) (holding that the defendant opened the door to other-act evidence by placing such evidence at issue).
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Demonstrative evidence is relevant if it illustrates or explains testimony presented at trial,” ¶ 7 (App. 2011), and must be sufficiently similar to the conditions that existed at the time of the offense
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 543; –14 (1981) (defendant did not receive a harsher sentence when superior court imposed the same sentence on remand but for a lesser offense); (rejecting argument “that the proportionally greater degree of aggravation constituted an increase in [the defendant’s] sent
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
be similar to those being duplicated in order for the demonstration to be admissible.”
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
at 497 (stating that improper remarks on their own do not necessarily indicate prejudice); –10 (1981).
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[I]n resolving the issue of premeditation and deliberation [in a first degree murder case] the jury is authorized to take into consideration the conduct of the 4 The record does not support DeMocker’s argument that it was undisputed that because of the divorce, he had no right to the proceeds of th
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rock Kelly Ingram 368 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Actions 7(c) (allowing for stay of trial court proceedings if appellate court cannot address issue raised in special action “immediately”); (state filed special action in middle of trial; this court stayed trial while it resolved issue raised in special action).
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“[T]he conditions of a demonstration must be similar to those being duplicated in order for the demonstration to be admissible.” State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 408
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
d 593, 629 (1992), , , (defendant waived issue by failing to renew motion to sever count); , , -400 , -48 (1981); , Pierce, 27 Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.’ ” , ( , )
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (Mincey I); , (Mincey II); , (Mincey III).
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
(holding defendant opens the door to further inquiry on a topic by introducing that topic in its examination of a witness); , cert.
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Johnson 842 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
hour later, saw a pink bicycle lying in the street on Pocito; (6) limiting the in-court experiments defense counsel was permitted to conduct with Dr. Walter Birkby, the physical anthropologist who examined the teeth attached to the mandible recovered in the desert and identified them as belonging to the victim, , , (7) ruling that James Thorton, who was disclosed as a surrebuttal witness after trial began, could testify during the defense’s case-in-chief, but only on the limited issue of nickel
State v. Mayer 834 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Mayer 834 P.2d 165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Stidham 791 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Stidham 791 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), , cert.
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
3097 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983); -97 , -45 (1981), cert.
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
State v. Brita 761 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1988