Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roberts, 612 P.2d 1055.

32 citing documents.

State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Pennington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(recognizing that while the court reversed conviction because of error to exclude witness, it must address insufficient evidence argument because of double jeopardy considerations); (holding that a defendant cannot be re-tried when conviction is reversed on appeal b
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
the superior court’s error gave rise to a presumption of prejudice.
State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carrizoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
mption of prejudice is generally necessary in the context of purely expert witnesses because disclosure of their expert reports and pretrial depositions establish[es] a basis for assessing actual prejudice in the form of altered 6 STATE v. CARRIZOZA Decision of the Court opinions.”); –95 (1980) (a change in testimony of a fact witness after hearing two other witnesses amounted to prejudice).
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Spring argues that Bradford’s violations create a presumption of prejudice.
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[F]ailure to honor an exclusionary request is presumed prejudicial unless the absence of prejudice is clearly manifest from the record”; a defendant’s “conviction must .
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Spring v. Bradford 388 P.3d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
6 SPRING v. BRADFORD Opinion of the Court ¶18 Spring relies on the Arizona Supreme Court’s statement in a criminal case that the superior court’s “failure to honor an exclusionary request is presumed prejudicial unless the absence of prejudice is clearly manifest from the record.” 5 But Roberts involved a failure to honor an exclusionary request in the context of fact witnesses.
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
“[F]ailure to honor an exclusionary request is presumed prejudicial unless the absence of prejudice is clearly manifest from the record.”
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
128 , , overruled on other grounds
State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Appellant now claims that he was denied a fundamental due process right to a fair trial by the late exclusion of witnesses, , and State v. Radi, 168 Mont.
State v. Crum 722 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Crum 722 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir.1983)
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
alters Schlaefli , establishing that when a witness violates the rule, prejudice is presumed.
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
The rule provides: “Prior to or during any proceeding the court may, and at the request of either party shall, exclude prospective witnesses from the courtroom and direct them not to communicate with each other until all have testified.” , the court reversed a conviction, stating that “failure to honor an exclusionary request is presumed prejudicial unless the absence of prejudice is clearly manifest from the record."
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981
State v. Clow 634 P.2d 576 Ariz. 1981