Cited by

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

89 citing documents.

State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action Nos. J-1123 & J-1124 709 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action Nos. J-1123 & J-1124 709 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The trial court has “practically unlimited” discretion in determining competency, , and absent a clear abuse of *306 discretion we will not overturn the trial court’s decision.
State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
While appellant concedes that evidence of prior, similar acts involving conduct evidencing a propensity toward “sexual aberration,” is properly admissible as part of the state’s case-in-chief, , he argues that only after a full week of trial was the defense notified of the state’s intention to use evidence of a prior bad act, or evidence of sexual aberration, through the testimony of a prior victim.
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
the court said, It has long been the law in Arizona that evaluating the competency of a witness is a matter left to the trial judge’s discretion and that the court’s ruling will not be overruled absent a clear abuse of discretion____ A.R.S.
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTY 689 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1984
(applying Ballard to the ordering of psychiatric examinations of sex crime victim for competency).
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965)
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hensley 669 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1983
State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the giving of a lesser included offense instruction on contributing to the delinquency of a minor where "the defendant pled not guilty but presented no alternative explanation for his actions.
State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Cousin 664 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Linden 664 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Melendez 661 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Melendez 661 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
it is established that the trial court’s discretion in determining a child’s competency is practically unlimited.
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
State v. Miller 632 P.2d 552 Ariz. 1981
State v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 631 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF ARIZ., ETC. 631 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Rhymes 628 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rhymes 628 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1981
State v. Rodriguez 609 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Rodriguez 609 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Bailey 609 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1979