DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gretzler, 612 P.2d 1023.

106 citing documents.

  • State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See State v. Bussdieker, 127 Ariz. 8 STATE v. RICCI Decision of the Court 339, 342 (1980)
  • State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (denying motion to strike where “testimony was probative of several links in the chain of events leading from the kidnapping .
  • State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “Conviction of a felony is material to a witness’s credibility.”
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
    Even knowledge of the case or an opinion concerning the defendant’s guilt will not disqualify a juror if the juror can “set aside such knowledge or opinion in evaluating the evidence presented at trial.”
  • Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
  • Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
    We have held, in interpreting substantially identical language in the statute governing appointment of experts in capital cases, that the decision rests in “the sound discretion of the trial court.” (“A.R.S.
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    (upholding *453 trial court’s decision to preclude defense expert’s testimony on cocaine intoxication where the expert “had no basis upon which to render an opinion about the effects of crack cocaine use at the time of the murder”); , (stating that “[t]estimony concerning intoxication should be limited to the time of the crime for which the defendant is being tried”)
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    587 n. 1, , 619 n. 1 (1983)
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    In this case, as in all others, the jury was “the ultimate arbiter of voluntariness, and [was] free, in effect, [to] disagree with the judge, and reject the confession.” , (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
    Id.; , (the existence of prosecutorial discretion does not affect the validity of defendant’s sentence), cert.
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
    (instructing the jury to consider the testimony of an interested witness with skepticism is an impermissible comment on the evidence)
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
    339 , 88 L.Ed.2d 324 (1985) (where the evidence of the burglary was entwined with the homicides the offenses were properly consolidated); State v. Gretzler (Gretzler I), , (offenses arising out of defendant’s effort to leave Tucson without police detection were properly consolidated).
  • Mathews v. State 782 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Mathews v. State 782 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    That delays before the initial trial date are to be excluded time is the teaching, implicit or explicit
  • State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Grabbe 760 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Grabbe 760 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    where the court stated: Though he urged the continuances that were granted, Gretzler now protests that the continuances were improper.
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
    Thus, we have allowed expert medical and behavioral testimony to assist in explaining such esoteric topics as the general impact of certain drugs on the average person, , the general reliability of eyewitness identification, Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 297 , 660 P.2d at 1224 ; the fact that many child abuse victims recant their accusations, , and the general characteristics of a victim of battered
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
    appeals after remand, , , , cert.
  • State v. Figueroa 726 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Figueroa 726 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • McCutcheon v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE 723 P.2d 661 Ariz. 1986
  • McCutcheon v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE 723 P.2d 661 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985