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. Acree, 588 P.2d 836.

58 citing documents.

  • State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
  • Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
    Rule 613(b) provides, in relevant part, “[e]xtrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.” ¶27 we held that prior inconsistent statements, “unless inadmissible under some other rule, become substantive evidence usable for all purposes.” Id.
  • State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ("[A] reviewing court in a criminal case does not weigh the evidence to decide whether it would reach the same conclusion as the trier-of-fact.").
  • State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
    e trial court decides to permit the introduction of Prasertphong’s statement to the police, the court must instruct the jury as to the limited purpose for which Prasertphong’s statement is introduced.9 9 We note that this court has held that when prior inconsistent statements are admitted, “such statements may be used substantively as well as for impeachment.”
  • Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    NOTES [1] , (in prior statement daughter stated that her father sexually abused her; at trial daughter recanted her accusations); , (in prior statement witness said defendant pointed a gun at her and tried to shoot her; at trial witness testified that defendant never pointed a gun at her and she did not believe he would have shot her); , (in prior statement
  • State v. Galvan-Cardenas 799 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Galvan-Cardenas 799 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. McNeill 707 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. McNeill 707 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Lynn v. Helitec Corp. 698 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • Tuzon v. MacDougall 671 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Tuzon v. MacDougall 671 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Steiger 655 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Steiger 655 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    The evidence submitted to the trial judge on stipulation, viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the state, , reveals that on Saturday, August 30, 1980, DPS Agent, Wayne A. Wright, and Yavapai County Sheriff Deputy Phil Quigley, seized approximately 800 pounds of marijuana from the Winter Camp area of the Matli Ranch located approximately 22 miles outside of Prescott.
  • State v. Olson 654 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Olson 654 P.2d 48 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
    Rules of Evidence, rule 607, provides that “[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him.” , we noted that rule 607 eliminated the need to prove damage or prejudice before a party could impeach its own witness.
  • 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. Navallez 639 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Navallez 639 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Bravo 639 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Bravo 639 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Johnson 643 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Johnson 643 P.2d 708 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