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. Smith, 599 P.2d 199.

118 citing documents.

  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Admission of such testimony would merit a mistrial or reversal only if it appeared reasonably possible that the error might have materially influenced the jury, , State v. Serrano, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Frederick 630 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Frederick 630 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    While it has been held that the sanction of preclusion should only be applied in those cases where other less stringent sanctions are not appropriate to effect the ends of justice, , , we do not believe that the ends of justice were violated by preclusion in this case.
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
    Rules 401, 402 and 403, Ariz.R.Evid.
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    While the appropriate sanction for noncompliance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, , , the trial court “should seek to apply sanctions that affect the evidence at trial and the merits of the case as little as possible....
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Clark 616 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
    A defendant waives his objections to the grand jury proceeding by failing to comply with the timeliness requirement, (citation omitted)” -48 , -04 (1979).
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
    375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see, e. g.
  • State v. Fierro 603 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Fierro 603 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1979
    is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with any provisions of this rule or any order issued pursuant thereto, the court may impose any sanction which it finds just under the circumstances, including, but not limited to: “(4) Precluding a party from calling a witness, offering evidence, or raising a defense not disclosed * * , , we held that the trial court should prohibit the calling of witnesses “only in those cases where other less stringent sanctions are no