Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jessen, 633 P.2d 410.

92 citing documents.

Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Desmond v. Superior Court 779 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1989
Div. of Finance v. Industrial Com'n 769 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Div. of Finance v. Industrial Com'n 769 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
appears to require that such an instruction be given, if requested
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
n. 1 n. 1 (1981), our supreme court likewise stated: Even if otherwise inadmissible hearsay underlying an expert opinion is introduced into evidence, it has only “the limited purpose of disclosing the basis for the opinion____” Comment to Rule 703, Arizona Rules of Evidence.
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
548 , 83 L.Ed.2d 436 (1984)
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
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
State v. Ottman 698 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1985
State v. Ottman 698 P.2d 1279 Ariz. 1985
-9 , -18 (1981); -89 , -02 (App.1982).
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
(trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions where no prejudice resulted from nondisclosure).
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Baines v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 688 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Baines v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTY 688 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
State v. Stewart 676 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1984
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983
Crimmins v. SUPERIOR CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CY. 668 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1983
urging that it is dispositive of Crimmins’ claims and requires that he be denied relief.
State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
See , (aggression and association with violent persons as indicative of an aggressive and violent character); , (acting impulsively is a character trait); , (veracity is a trait of character).
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Earby 665 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
State v. Williams, supra
State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
State v. Jessen 657 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1982
The defendant was convicted of first degree murder after a jury trial, , remanding the matter for a new trial.
State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
It is enough if a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have believed that he was in immediate physical danger.”
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Malloy 639 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981