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. La Mountain, 611 P.2d 551.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
    1749 , 90 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986); McMurtrey, 136 Ariz. at 93 , 664 P.2d at 637 ; , Collins, 132 Ariz. at 180 , 644 P.2d at 1266 ; , Mena, 128 Ariz. at 226 , 624 P.2d at 1274
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Tison 690 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1984
    It was not until 1980 that this court specifically addressed the admissibility of testimony by witnesses who have been hypnotized, , and it was not until 1982 that this issue was settled, see State ex rel.
  • State v. Tison 690 P.2d 755 Ariz. 1984
    It was not until 1980 that this court specifically addressed the admissibility of testimony by witnesses who have been hypnotized, , and it was not until 1982 that this issue was settled, see State ex rel.
  • State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Young 661 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Henderson 650 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Henderson 650 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
  • Lemieux v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 644 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1982
  • Lemieux v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, ETC. 644 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1982
  • State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
    In this instance the trial judge indicated at the outset of the evidentiary hearing that Mena, supra, was a , and granted defendant’s motion in limine excluding all testimony of witnesses who had undergone hypnosis.
  • State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
    for the proposition that statements by a witness who has been hypnotized are unreliable and inadmissible in criminal cases.
  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grier 630 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Finally, the state brings to our attention the fact that the victim was placed under hypnosis on January 23, 1979, in an apparent attempt to assist her in recalling additional details of the crime, , , testimony *282 developed as a result of the hypnosis is not admissible.
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1981
    While we approve the reasoning and result of the Court of Appeals as to defendant's second and third grounds of appeal, we reverse the conviction of assault based on defendant’s , and remand for a new trial.
  • State v. Henry 624 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Henry 624 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980