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. Dickey, 608 P.2d 302.

52 citing documents.

  • Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
  • Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
    (affirming exclusion of certain testimony of psychiatrist, while noting separate expert “opinion of several traits of appellant’s personality, such as being overly protective, easily fearful, and not prone to violence .
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
    401, 402, 404(b); see also State v. Dickey, 125 Ariz. 163, 167, (ruling that defendant’s statement weeks before shooting, “If anybody ever messes with me, I’ll blow them away,” was relevant to prove premeditation).
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
    Expert psychological testimony also can be appropriate to demonstrate general character traits, “such as being overly protective, easily fearful, and not prone to violence.”
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
    See rule 22.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (discretionary term used); , (discussing discretionary nature of rule 22.3); State v. Vaughn, 200 Or.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
    State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36 , 628 P.2d at 583-84 ; , -08 (1980).
  • State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
    State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36, -84;4[ 2 ] , -08 (1980).
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
    and various Arizona cases, , which, affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of testimony that the expert believed the defendant.
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    the court concluded that such evidence was admissible to establish a “character trait” of the defendant.
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
    na law is clear, however, that “[s]uch testimony may only be used as evidence that the defendant possesses such a trait and it must be left to the jury to determine whether and how the trait affected the defendant’s specific intent at the time of the alleged crime.” State v. Hicks, 133 Ariz. at 71 , 649 P.2d at 274 ; State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36 , 628 P.2d at 583-84
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
    (expert may not testify that defendant was not acting reflectively at the time of the crime); , (expert may not testify that at the time of the crime defendant lacked ability to form specific intent); , (expert may not testify that defendant was not thinking reflectively at time of crime); see also, Bradshaw v. State, 353 So.2d 188 (Fla.
  • Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
  • Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
  • Lundquist v. Seales 657 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Lundquist v. Seales 657 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    (additional instruction, given in response to question whether jury had to have one hundred percent agreement on self-defense verdict before proceeding to next possible verdict, was not misleading because it did not say the jury should return “not guilty” verdict if it had reasonable doubt over s
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
    State v. Salazar, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Womack 639 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Womack 639 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Schad 633 P.2d 366 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
    see Rule 21.3(c), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Christensen 628 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1981
    we said: “In the present case, the jury heard Dr. Gray’s opinion of several traits of appellant’s personality, such as being overly protective, easily fearful, and not prone to violence.
  • State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, , the record reflects that on March 9, 1979, appellant was driving home when she saw her husband with the victim, a woman with whom she suspected her husband of having an affair.