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. Brown, 608 P.2d 299.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    “The danger to be avoided by excluding evidence of other offenses is that the jury may conclude that the defendant is a ‘bad man’ and convict on lesser evidence than would ordinarily be necessary to support a conviction.“ ().
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Davila 938 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    It is not for us to reweigh the evidence, , but rather to determine whether any rational trier-of-fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 190, at 801-03 (4th ed. 1992).
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
    (in a prosecution for robbery of two bowling alleys, the Court admitted evidence of a prior bowling alley robbery where all three robberies involved “casing” of the lanes while using the pinball machines, using a bowling bag to conceal the weapon and carry the stolen cash, and failing t
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerra 778 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1989
    521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984)
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Spinks 752 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Sullivan 635 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Initially, where evidence is erroneously admitted, reversal is required only when it is reasonably probable that, absent the tainted evidence, the jury would have reached a different conclusion.
  • State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Nelson 633 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1981
    338 , 66 L.Ed.2d 161 (1980)
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Martinez 622 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1980