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. Marahrens, 560 P.2d 1211.

51 citing documents.

  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 34 (2006) (reviewing for fundamental error a suppression argument first raised on appeal); -06 (1977) (waiving suppression issue when defendant neither joined codefendant’s motion nor raised the issue at trial).
  • State v. Terrazas 944 P.2d 1194 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    1496, 1499-1500 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); , and that any probative value of the admitted evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Terrazas 930 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Terrazas 930 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    State v. Corcoran (Treadaway), , , , , 473-74 n. 3, , 233-34 n. 3 (App.1993); , , (App.
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
    557, 562 (1980) (“On appeal, a defendant cannot take advantage of objections made by a co-defendant in the absence of stipulation or understanding to that effect.”); , *57 306
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (“ ‘Evidence of a vague and uncertain character ...
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schurz 859 P.2d 156 Ariz. 1993
    Schurz also argues that before evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b), the evidence of the other crime must be substantial enough to take the case to the jury.
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Webb 717 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Featherman 651 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Featherman 651 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    although it need not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Ballantyne 623 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Ballantyne 623 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    appellant argues that before a threat may be admissible as an exception to the past bad acts rule, the evidence must substantially establish the accused’s connection with the prior act.
  • State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Miller 624 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    although it need not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Glasco 605 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Glasco 605 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Bridges 600 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Bridges 600 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    Next, appellant argues that evidence of a prior attempted burglary that evening should have been inadmissible because the evidence linking appellant to that incident was vague and unsubstantiated
  • State v. Padilla 595 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Padilla 595 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1979
    Since there was a subsequent conviction based on that event
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jackson 589 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jackson 589 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1979
    Although we agree that when acts are shown only by vague or uncertain evidence they may not properly be considered by the jury for any purpose, , we find that substantial *279 evidence of these acts was presented to the jury.
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
    Mere possession of a meat price tag shows no offense; in the context of this fact situation, it is merely a ‘suspicious circumstance.’ 22A C.J.S., supra.”
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977