Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodriguez, 612 P.2d 484.

68 citing documents.

State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
State v. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
State v. McLoughlin 652 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1982
Although a jury is entitled to have the entire picture of a defendant who pleads insanity, , this Court has not held that the plea of insanity negates the physician-patient privilege.
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
It is apparent that in criminal cases, a ‘motion in limine’ is nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 20 * * *
State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Collins 648 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Morales 630 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. SUPERIOR CT. OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 627 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1981
State v. SUPERIOR CT. OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 627 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Tovar 627 P.2d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
our supreme court said, “[I]n criminal cases, a motion in limine is nothing more than a motion to suppress specifically authorized by Rule 16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.” A reading of paragraphs 4, 12, and 19 above shows that they are not sufficient to support a motion to sup
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
“[T]he power to control trial strategy belongs to counsel.”