Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mosley, 581 P.2d 238.

113 citing documents.

Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Thus, Warner’s reliance on this Court’s regarding the discretion a trial court has in determining whether to allow expert testimony at trial was misplaced.
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In support of their position, Defendants cite Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC, in which we stated: At trial, “the determination of areas where expert testimony is appropriate is within the trial court’s discretion.” State v. Mosley, [].
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(noting substantial evidence may be direct or circumstantial).
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”); (“Generally, any evidence that substantiates the credibility of a prosecuting witness on the question of guilt is material and relevant, and may be properly admitted.”).
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The substantial evidence supporting a conviction may be circumstantial or direct, and the State need not negate every conceivable theory of innocence when circumstantial evidence alone supports the conviction
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
within the trial court’s discretion, and such a determination will not be upset on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The substantial evidence supporting conviction may be circumstantial or direct, and the State need not negate every conceivable theory of innocence when circumstantial evidence alone supports the conviction
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
such [materials] become relevant and are admissible.”) (); (“Generally, any evidence that substantiates the credibility of a prosecuting witness on the question of guilt is material and relevant, and may be properly admitted.”) (citations omitted).
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Desert Images, L.L.C., ¶ 14 (App. 2008) ().
Gastelum v. Hegyi 348 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gastelum v. Hegyi 348 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
273, 276, (holding that “[w]hen an officer is justified in believing that the detainee is armed, he may perform a pat-down search for weapons in the interests of safety”); , (holding that because “officers could have reasonably suspected that criminal activity was afoot, and that persons within the vehicle were armed,” a Terry stop and frisk was justified); ¶ 16 , (holding that after suspect admit
State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
At trial, “the determination of areas where expert testimony is appropriate is within the trial court’s discretion.”
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 48 The trial court denied the Lohmeiers’ request for a Frye hearing without explanation, citing only Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 and two cases in which the Arizona Supreme Court analyzed the qualifications of proffered experts, Davolt, 207 Ariz. at 210-11, ¶¶ 69-83 , 84 P.3d at 475-76 , -400 , -45 (1978).
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
7 (1993) (finding evidence of attempted murder admissible to prove identity of the perpetrator of three separate murders); (finding evidence of trackmarks admissible to prove appellant’s knowledge of the nature of the drugs in question and his intent to possess them); (finding testimony that the defendant had knowingly purchased stolen go
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(concluding that neither letter nor spirit of Rule 15.1 applied to situation where prosecutor first received notice of defendant’s “track marks” during trial).
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
“[T]he trial court has no duty to direct an acquittal where there is substantial evidence that a defendant has committed the crime charged,” , and “[ujnless there is a complete absence of probative evidence to support a particular finding, it is appropriate to submit the issue to the jury.”
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
State v. Mathers 796 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1990
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
However, this rule is “engrafted with well-recognized exceptions.”
State v. Belcher 776 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Belcher 776 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Van Winkle 719 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Van Winkle 719 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Bauer 704 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984