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. Fleming, 571 P.2d 268.

102 citing documents.

  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
    1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); , (holding that the “right to cross-examination must be kept within ‘reasonable’ bounds and the trial court has discretion to curtail its scope”).
  • State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Taggart 925 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    1743, 1746 , 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991)
  • 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
  • State v. Rodriguez 903 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Rodriguez 903 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • 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. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Munguia 668 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Munguia 668 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the court stated: “The right of cross-examination is a vital part of the right of confrontation conferred by the Sixth Amendment.
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    The often reiterated test regarding alleged denial of the right to cross-examination is “whether the defendant has been denied the opportunity of presenting to the trier of fact information which bears either on the issues in the case or on the credibility of [the] witness.” State v. McElyea, Jr., , ( , ).
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Agnew 647 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    A. Yes.” Counsel for both appellants had agreed not to show Cox’s guilty plea in cross-examination so this was not the typical “drawing the sting.”
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    Although we have been cited to no Arizona cases directly in point, , to be instructive on this *531 issue.
  • State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. McElyea 635 P.2d 170 Ariz. 1981
    “The test [for denial of the right to cross-examination] is whether the defendant has been denied the opportunity of presenting to the trier of fact information which bears either on the issues in the case or on the credibility of the witness.”
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
    1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
    Many cases so held, see, e. g., , State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
    we stated: “Distinctions between reasonable limitations on the scope of cross-examination and unnecessary restrictions on the right to confront witnesses are, however, difficult to draw and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Baumann 610 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1980
    we said: Distinctions between reasonable limitations on the scope of cross-examination and unnecessary restrictions on the right to confront witnesses are, however, difficult to draw and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Duffy 603 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Johnson 594 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1979
    : “Defendant contends that all other arguments when taken together demonstrate that he did not receive a fair trial.
  • State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978