Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
we held that “any evidence that substantiates the credibility of a prosecuting witness on the question of guilt is material and relevant, and may be properly admitted.” We hold today that any evidence that substantiates the credibility of an accused, testifying in his or her own defens
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Rule 20, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rule 404, Rules of Evidence.
State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
State v. Spoon 669 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Jeffers 661 P.2d 1105 Ariz. 1983
State v. Torres, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Latino, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Romero 659 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Paoletto 652 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
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. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Conroy 642 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
ialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” The determination of whether the expert’s opinion will be helpful to the jury is left to the discretion of the trial judge, , and we will overturn the exercise of that discretion only upon a showing of abuse.
State v. Hines 633 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hines 633 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Blevins 625 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Blevins 625 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Blevins 623 P.2d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 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
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
our Supreme Court discussed when a trial court is required to grant such a motion.
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulligan 613 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1980
It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gretzler 612 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1980
State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Fierro 603 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1979