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. Poland, 698 P.2d 183.

94 citing documents.

  • State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that photographs of stab wounds in victim’s chest and victim’s nude *306 body smeared with blood were properly admitted); , (holding that photograph of victim’s body and close-up photograph of victim’s torso and decomposed head were properly admitted), aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
    See Neely, 165 Ariz. at 508 , 799 P.2d at 849 ; , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lopez 883 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • State v. Lopez 883 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
    aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
    (cruelty does not exist if victim is unconscious when violent acts causing death are committed); cf. Wallace, 151 Ariz. at 367 , 728 P.2d at 237 (cruelty does not exist if victim is unconscious at time of death); , (same).
  • State v. Rossi 830 P.2d 797 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    We also noted that ”[t]he voir dire was properly used to rehabilitate her by persuading her of her responsibility to sit impartially.” Id.; , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
    See LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 36 , 734 P.2d at 578 ; State v. Poland (Poland II), -06 , -01 (1985), aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
    See, , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
    aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    -95 , -90 (1985), aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
    898 , 88 L.Ed.2d 932 (1986); , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
    Where “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.” , aff'd, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • 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
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently stated that “the preferred method for complying with Rule 609 is a specific on-the-record finding that the probative value of using a prior conviction for impeachment outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.” , (emphasis added), ( , , ), aff'd, Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 , 106 S.Ct.
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Fiveash v. Superior Court of Arizona 752 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    see also State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Rossi 741 P.2d 1223 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Rossi 741 P.2d 1223 Ariz. 1987
    State v. Neil, 4 Ariz.App.
  • Nevarez v. Superior Court 728 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • Nevarez v. Superior Court 728 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
    (jury sentencing); , , cert.
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    391 , 74 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982) (same holding); State v. [Patrick] Poland, , (trial court can refuse to find character evidence as a mitigating circumstance if inconsistent with defendant’s criminal acts).
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1985
    The facts in Michael’s , filed this day.