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