Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 599 P.2d 199.

118 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
I, 464 U.S. at 510-12 & n.10 (embarrassment of jurors); (embarrassment and emotional disturbance of rape victim); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
e proponent’s case,” (2) “whether the opposing party will be 23 surprised and prejudiced by the witness’ testimony,” (3) “whether the discovery violation was motivated by bad faith or willfulness,” and (4) “any other relevant circumstances.”
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 10 Rule 12.9(b) provides that a motion to dismiss under that rule must be filed “no later than 25 days after the certified transcript and minutes of the grand jury proceedings have been filed or 25 days after the arraignment is held, whichever is later.” “A defendant waives his objections to the grand jury proceeding by failing to comply with the timeliness requirement.” , , (defendant “waived his right to challenge the determination of probable cause by failing to act in a timely matter”).
State v. Fell 171 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Fell 171 P.3d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
the court stated in Maule , "It is clear from Arizona cases that a defendant may not sit back during the 25-day period and do nothing without being subject to a claim that he waived his objections to the grand jury proceedings by failing to comply with the timeliness requirement."
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
The court’s ruling limited the testimony to the three rape convictions, the murder convictions, and another rape conviction that was overturned on appeal
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“The trial court’s findings of fact ...
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
Preclusion is “a sanction of last resort,” , to be imposed only if “other less stringent sanctions are not applicable.”
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Dale Meinhardt Ariz. 2003
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Dale Meinhardt Ariz. 2003
See State v. Smith (Joseph Clarence, Jr.), (footnotes omitted).
State v. Killean 915 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
(court may “impose any sanction which it finds just”) , (requiring inquiry to decide whether sanctions short of witness preclusion can be used in criminal cases) with Rule 26.1(c) Ariz. R.Civ.P.
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Either result would defeat the objectives of discovery.” As stated by our supreme court in State v. (Joseph Clarence Jr.) Smith, , : The trial court ...
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. (Joseph Clarence, Jr.) Smith
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
on a special action brought by the state, reversed the trial court stating: It appearing that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding the witnesses Michael Mata and Jose Alvarez from testifying because the State acted in good faith in delaying disclosure until two weeks before trial and because less stringent actions are available, e.g., a continuance if necessary, , therefore The order of preclusion is vacated and set aside.
State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Young 720 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Alder 704 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
-48 , -04 (1979) (citation omitted).
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the defendant waited until the 25-day period elapsed before filing a motion for new finding of probable cause.
State v. Smith 681 P.2d 1374 Ariz. 1984
State v. Smith 681 P.2d 1374 Ariz. 1984
State v. (Joseph Clarence, Jr.) Smith, , (footnotes and citations omitted).
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
See Rule 15.7(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982