DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ellerson, 609 P.2d 64.

68 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    entry of judgment and sentence.” 174 Ariz. LXXXVI (1993); -53, -68 (1980) (holding defendant who voluntarily absents himself may be sentenced in absentia); -49, -100 (App. 1977), supp. op., 575 P.2d And, the committee comment to the 1993 amendment to Rule 26.9 provides: “The 1993 amendme
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Defendant again responded, ‘Tes, it is.” ¶ 5 Defendant’s attorney later inquired about defendant’s prior conviction in order to “draw the sting,” , , and defendant admitted the conviction.
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
    (citation omitted), , see also S.Rep.
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
    (holding that plaintiffs did not waive their objection to the admission of a report because, ”[a]lthough plaintiffs were the first to refer to [the report] after it was admitted, the reference was an effort by plaintiffs to draw the sting____”); , ("[A] party should not necessarily lose his right to appeal a ruling because he alters his strategy in response to a trial court’s finding against him.”).
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ransom 764 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Ransom 764 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    it is clear from a reading of the record that the probative value has been balanced against the prejudice, a specific finding need not be made.” Poland, 144 Ariz. at 400 , 698 P.2d at 195 ( , ).
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
    However, when a motion to preclude “is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for appeal, despite the absence of a specific objection at trial.”
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
    requires the state to make a showing of the “circumstances surrounding the admission of the evidence” and that mere presentation of the date, nature, and place of the conviction is insufficient.
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
    Our review of the record reveals that the trial court conducted a
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    State v. Ethridge, 126 * P.2d 59 (1980)
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
    icited from him or established by public record, if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, and if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.” We have noted, , that, when the prosecution intends to offer a prior conviction to impeach a defendant, the trial judge should require th
  • State v. Sisneros 670 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Sisneros 670 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lujan 666 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lujan 666 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 669 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Hunter 669 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    The preferred practice is for the trial court to “ ‘make an on-the-record finding based on specific facts and circumstances that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.’” , quoting United States v. Mahler, 579 F.2d 730, 734 (2nd Cir.1978).
  • State v. Fettis 664 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Fettis 664 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 650 P.2d 1202 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Milburn 658 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Milburn 658 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    A , discloses that this contention is incorrect.