Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Watkins, 614 P.2d 835.

36 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. Fink 539 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. Fink 539 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See Broughton , 156 Ariz. at 399 , 752 P.2d at 488 (instruction inappropriate where state delayed testing evidence but did not destroy or lose it); State v. Watkins , , 301, , 843 (1980) (failure to identify blood type on weapon not destruction of evidence); State v. Todd , , ¶ 24, (decision not to develop DNA or fingerprint evidence from weapon not destruction or loss of evidence).
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Williams , 133 Ariz. at 232 , 650 P.2d at 1214 ; see also State v. Watkins , , 298, , 840 (1980) ("The anti-marital fact privilege exists by virtue of legislative fiat, as a matter of policy to protect certain interests" involved in the marital relationship.).
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See Mueller v. Hubbard Milling Co., 573 F.2d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir.1978) (error not harmless where counsel emphasized erroneously admitted evidence in closing argument); , (error harmless where erroneously admitted evidence not mentioned in opening or closing arguments).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(Willits instruction properly refused when evidence had "no evidentiary value"); (same).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
See, (noting that “[a] Willits instruction is not given merely because a more exhaustive investigation could have been made”); (concluding that the evidence had “no evidentiary value”); (same).
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Just as our courts have construed the marital privilege strictly against non-married couples, , (marital privileges do not apply to “de facto” or “quasi” marriages), Arizona’s public policy justifies extending the full benefit of the privilege to validly married couples, including couples who are separated.
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
State v. Whittle 752 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1988
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
“A weapon similar to that used to commit the crime may be introduced in evidence as illustrative of the weapon which the defendant used to assault his victim.” , (quoting State v. Mays, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
State v. Watkins 648 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1982
State v. Watkins 648 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1982
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 645 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 645 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rule 404(b), Arizona Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S.