Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Marvin, 606 P.2d 406.
- State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Gray
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
610 (“Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.”); (“[T]he state cannot assail a witness’ credibility because of religious beliefs or lack thereof .
- Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-
Kelley v. Abdo
105 P.3d 167
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
402 (“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”); , , (court properly excluded testimony concerning defendant’s religious beliefs).
- State v. Purcell 18 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
State v. Purcell
18 P.3d 113
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(court properly excluded testimony concerning defendant’s religious beliefs).
- State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
- Distinguished State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
State v. Jerdee
743 P.2d 10
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the court stated: “Any possible confusion concerning *419 the concept of premeditation was certainly cured by the court’s instructions.” Any possibility that the jury might have been confused or that it was influenced by the arguments of the prosecutor was cured by the statements of th
- State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Lucas 708 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
-
State v. Smith
707 P.2d 289
Ariz. 1985
(prosecutor’s use of the term “rape” in questioning the defendant, though improper, did not require reversal where the defendant had explained that he did “forcibly have sex” with his ex-wife and where other evidence of the defendant’s guilt was abundant).
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-96430 690 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-96430 690 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. LaGrand 674 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Smith 673 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
- State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
-
State v. Mincey
636 P.2d 637
Ariz. 1981
We have held that where there is no objection at trial, it is waived on appeal, , , unless the comments constitute fundamental error
- State v. Robinson 620 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Robinson 620 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Carrillo 626 P.2d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Canisales 615 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980