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. Canedo, 608 P.2d 774.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Espizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Espizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (When the court admits a criminal defendant’s prior offenses, it must inform the jury it is for the limited and restricted purpose of determining credibility as a witness and not to determine whether he is of bad character.); ¶ 37 (App. 2013) (“[C]ourts are not
  • State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Justice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    10 STATE v. JUSTICE Decision of the Court ¶24 Defendant’s in support of his argument is misplaced.
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    -86 , 229 P. 1032, 1032-33 (1924); , vacated on other grounds
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    See Arizona Evidence § 84, at 179; -200 , -77 (1980).
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Martinez 854 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    If anything, the instruction was advantageous to defendant, , , vacated on other grounds, , and he could not have been prejudiced by it.
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
    the instruction “was inadequate to properly inform the jury of the specific limited use of prior convictions.” In Cañedo and Cruz the defense attorneys had specifically requested a particular instruction.
  • State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Zamora 681 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    See, , vacated on other grounds, , Udall and Livermore, Arizona Practice— Law of Evidence, § 83 at 175, n. 28 (2nd ed. 1982).
  • State v. Rainey 672 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Rainey 672 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    2005 , 60 L.Ed.2d 380 (1979); cf.
  • State v. Dosztal 662 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Dosztal 662 P.2d 450 Ariz. 1983
    Because the Court of Appeals’ decision is “void and without effect,” see, , , there has been no proper appeal.
  • State v. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Maddasion 636 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Maddasion 636 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1981
    §§ 12-120.-21(A)(1) and 13-4031 (formerly 13-1711)
  • State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
    On March 26, 1980, appellant filed a , requesting the right to file a delayed appeal on the ground that the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court conviction was void due to lack of jurisdiction.
  • State v. Carbajal 625 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Carbajal 625 P.2d 895 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
    P.2d 774 (1980), , suggest the presence of fundamental error where no cautionary instruction has been given and where overwhelming evidence of guilt is absent.
  • State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
    2 Directly on point is the recent decision
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    a limiting instruction was requested and refused.