Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jeffers, 661 P.2d 1105.
- State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
State v. Thompson
707 P.2d 956
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
We do not believe that the prosecution should be allowed to circumnavigate the requirements of Rule 803(4) , by the simple expedient of qualifying the doctor as a “child abuse expert.” All doctors are potential “child abuse experts”, and allowing guilt assessment statements to be admitted through the back door of Rule 703 would mean the unwarranted creation of a special “child abuse” exception to Rule
- State v. Reidhead 705 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
State v. Reidhead
705 P.2d 1365
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
where the court stated: “Two important factors derive from the rule’s rationale: (1) whether the declarant’s motive is consistent with receiving medical care; and (2) whether it is reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in diagnosis or treatment.
- State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
- Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
- Followed State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
- State v. McMurtrey 691 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1984
- State v. McMurtrey 691 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Carriger
692 P.2d 991
Ariz. 1984
See, e.g., State v. Jordan, supra; , , cert.
- State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Clabourne
690 P.2d 54
Ariz. 1984
We have addressed and rejected this argument on a number of occasions, see, , , cert.
- State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Frustino 689 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Yslas 676 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. Summerlin
675 P.2d 686
Ariz. 1983
where defendant lured an ex-girlfriend to his motel room by offering her heroin.
- State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. McCall
677 P.2d 920
Ariz. 1983
(defendant pointed a gun at a third party merely to quiet her; subsequent murder of victim by other means did not subject third party to danger); State v. (Raymond) Tison, , cert.
- State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. Smith
673 P.2d 17
Ariz. 1983
For the reasons stated in State v. Lambright, we find the disposition in this case to be proportional to the disposition of the following similar cases in which the death penalty was imposed, , , , , cert.
- State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
-
State v. Harding
670 P.2d 383
Ariz. 1983
(emphasis in original) The best empirical evidence refuting the charge of impossibility of standardizing the “cruel, heinous or depraved” circumstance is our recent decision in State v. Richmond, supra.
- State v. Richmond 666 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1983