Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jerousek, 590 P.2d 1366.

89 citing documents.

State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Elizondo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”); (“[A] conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim unless the story is physically impossible or so incredible that no reason
State v. Madril Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Madril Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In general, a prima facie case for admission of a confession is made when the State shows a confession “was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty.” (citation omitted).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶15 A victim’s testimony alone may constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction, absent an account that is “physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.” –78 (1974) (); (“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”).
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
While such evidence is not required for the state to meet its burden of proof, (“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”), its absence here is a factor in our determination that the error was not harmless in light of the properly admitted evidence, see Romero
State v. Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(stating “[a] prima facie case for admission of a confession is made when the officer testifies that the confession was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty”).
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶16 Moreover, although there was no physical evidence to support the charges, physical evidence “is not required to sustain a conviction where the totality of the circumstances demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 42, (“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”); (conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a sexual assault unless “the story i
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“In child molestation cases, the defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.”).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(uncorroborated testimony of victim sufficient to convict defendant of offense); (same); State v. Haston, 64 Ariz. 72, 77, (same).
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“A prima facie case for admission of a confession is made when the officer testifies that the confession was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty.”
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
The state meets its burden “when the officer testifies that the confession was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty.” State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz. 420, 424
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
However, “[a] prima facie case for admission of a confession is made when the officer testifies that the confession was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty.” State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz. 420, 424
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
12 -93, -44 (1996) (admitting evidence of prior sexual encounter with one fourteen-year-old girl and lewd statements made to other young girls in case charging child molestation, kidnapping, and murder of a seven- year-old girl); -27, -73 (1979) (admitting evidence of prior child molestation and lewd and lascivious conduct involving a seven- year-old girl in case charging child molestation, commission of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of fifteen, and attempted rape of the sa
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
“A prima facie case for admission of a confession is made when the officer testifies that the confession was obtained without threat, coercion or promises of immunity or a lesser penalty.”
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Armstrong 862 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
555 *474 (1981); , State ex rel.
State v. Marquez-Sosa 779 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Marquez-Sosa 779 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
An appellate court will not disturb a lawful sentence 2 unless “it clearly appears that the sentence imposed is excessive, resulting in an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tapia 767 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1988
State v. Williams, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Byrd 772 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
*284 State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz 420
State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
M. Udall and J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 65 at 117-18 (2d ed. 1982).