Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Holsinger, 601 P.2d 1054.

53 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
¶ 40 (2004) (“We will 17 This was not a question about a “long criminal record” followed by an immediate objection by the defense, –21 (1979).
State v. Works Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Works Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
for the proposition that “[a] prosecutor may not accomplish with insinuation what it cannot do directly.” In Holsinger, the court concluded the prosecutor’s questioning “ha[d] no basis in fact” and was improper because the “question clearly implied that the defendant had a long criminal record when, in fact, s
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶22 to support his argument that the prosecutor’s conduct entitles him to a new trial.
Robert W. Baird & Co. v. Whitten 418 P.3d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Robert W. Baird & Co. v. Whitten 418 P.3d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Holsinger , , 22, , 1058 (1979).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Burch v. Hon. myers/hon. bassett/lund 351 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 The attorney-client privilege safeguards the “communication between the attorney and client made in the course of the attorney’s professional employment.” ¶ 10 (App. 2003) ().
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See United States v. Cochran, 770 F.2d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1985) (“retrospective inquiries to determine the validity of waivers are likely to be futile”); , (A client “should be able to speak freely without any fear and in full confidence that what is said by him or to him by his attorney will not be subsequently subject to disclosure____”) (quoting People v. Shapiro, 308 N.Y.
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lee 13 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2000
-23 , -59 (1979) (comment not allowed in criminal case); see also Deborah Stavile Bartel, Drawing Negative Inferences Upon a Claim of the Attorney Client Privilege, 60 Brook L.Rev.
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
See, , (holding that it was reversible error to imply that the defendant had a long criminal record when she in fact did not); , (holding that it was reversible error to comment on defendant’s record when no evidence of prior convicti
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Goodfarb 862 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1993
(“The reason for the privilege is not to protect the client, but to encourage free exchange of information between the attorney and the client and to promote the administration of justice.”) The privilege is not without its costs.
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Samaritan Foundation v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
§ 74, at 136; see also State v. *434 Holsinger
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Certainteed Corp. v. United Pacific Insurance 762 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Certainteed Corp. v. United Pacific Insurance 762 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Adams 745 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Adams 745 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
appellant argues that it was misconduct for the state to insinuate the existence of evidence which it could not produce.
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
Appellant also claims that reference to the Pasco robbery amounted to “conviction by innuendo” -22 , -58 (1979).
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
The basis for this rule is that “[by] asking questions that have no basis in fact, the questioner can leave in the minds of the jurors all kinds of damaging and prejudicial but false or inadmissible facts, facts which can’t be adequately rebutted____”
State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Distinguished United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
and Vilardi v. Vilardi, 200 Misc.
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
State v. Celaya 660 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1983
The testimony here is not relevant under rule 404(b), , nor under rule 404(a)(1), to impeach the defendant’s character.
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
In support of this proposition, defendant relies upon this court’s
State v. Womack 639 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Womack 639 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Ballantyne 623 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981