Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Christensen, 628 P.2d 580.

121 citing documents.

State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
See United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758 (D.C.Cir.1973); , (listing specific instances in the context of a murder case when state-of-mind evidence is admissible).
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
“[T]he statements must be examined in context to determine whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive them to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.” Schrock, 149 Ariz. at 438 , 719 P.2d at 1054 ( , ).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
We have adopted the view that a defendant also has the right to attend those proceedings where “his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.” , (citation omitted); Levato, 186 Ariz. at 443 , 924 P.2d at 447 .
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
The court of appeals, division two, , , reversed the trial court and held that the evidence was admissible to challenge an element of the crime.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Mott 901 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Mott 901 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
our supreme court addressed the issue of whether evidence which would have established certain character traits of the defendant raised a “diminished responsibility” defense.
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
5 Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, , , are consistent with this general rule.
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
(“the remark of the prosecution did not go beyond a pertinent reply and was not reversible error”).
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
(“if evidence is objected to on one ground in the trial court and admitted over that objection, other grounds raised for the first time on appeal are waived”) (citation omitted); , (appellant waives error by “assigning grounds for objection not raised below”) (citation omitted).
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
(how conduct should be judged in determining whether a child molestation victim is credible as opposed to whether this victim is telling the truth); , (alcoholic character trait as opposed to how that trait influenced the defendant during the crime); , (trait of impulsivity as opposed to whether defendant was acting impulsively and without reflection at the time of the crime).
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ortiz 764 P.2d 13 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Arnett 760 P.2d 1064 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
Trevizo v. Astec Industries, Inc. 751 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Trevizo v. Astec Industries, Inc. 751 P.2d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Ferguson 717 P.2d 879 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Druke 693 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The essence of the real party in interest’s motion with regard to Dr. Bendheim’s testimony is that his evaluation “presents the psychiatric picture of a man who acted reflexively at the time of the alleged offenses” and that his testimony concerning the “psychological makeup of the accused”
State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
7 , (“[I]t is inconsistent with fundamental justice to prevent a defendant from offering evidence to dispute the charge against him.”) Though this denial of due process in itself requires reversal, we feel compelled to comment on other aspects of the trial court’s treatment of the proffered