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. Garrison, 585 P.2d 563.

49 citing documents.

  • State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (Willits instruction properly refused when evidence had "no evidentiary value"); (same).
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
    See, (noting that “[a] Willits instruction is not given merely because a more exhaustive investigation could have been made”); (concluding that the evidence had “no evidentiary value”); (same).
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    (holding that “reversal would not be appropriate if a retrial would involve admission of what is presently objected to”); , (“Were we to reverse on this ground, it would only result in a retrial at which the same evidence would be admitted____Courts should not engage in such futile practices.”).
  • State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • Distinguished State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    ); , 198 P. 288, 290 (1921) (fingerprint experts properly testified that fingerprint lifted at crime scene came from appellant); , (hair and fiber examiner properly testified that hairs found in victim’s apartment and on appellant’s clothing derived from a “common origin”); , (dentist testified to an eight in one million probability that teeth marks in victim were not made by appellant); , (dentist skilled in forensic odon *514 tology testified that bite mark on victim “was consistent with ap
  • State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Richards 804 P.2d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the supreme court *578 found that an expert in forensic odontology could properly testify that there was an eight in one million probability that the bite marks found on the victim were not made by the accused.
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wright 778 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Wright 778 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Hunter, 136 Ariz. at 51 , 664 P.2d at 201
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
    at 714 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 719 ) (merely because suspect was questioned at police station does not alone show custodial interrogation); see also State v. Perea, supra (merely because the defendant was the last person seen with the victim and was interrogated at the police station does not prove custodial interrogation); -57 , -65 (1978) (same holding as Perea).
  • State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Best 703 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
    At the time of the second statement defendant knew that he was not under arrest, had the right not to talk and the right to leave if he wished; therefore, the interview conducted at the police station does not rise “to the level of a custodial interrogation.”
  • State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
  • State Ex Rel. Munoz v. Bravo 678 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State Ex Rel. Munoz v. Bravo 678 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    and appellant cites this case to show that these probabilities should not have been admitted.
  • State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Riffle 638 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Riffle 638 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Marvin 606 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1980