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. Mena, 624 P.2d 1274.

49 citing documents.

  • State v. Karaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Karaba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See, vacated in part on other grounds, -33 (1981) (affirming the defendant’s escape conviction where he freed himself from a locked patrol car).
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    -32 , -80 (1981) (hypnotically refreshed testimony).
  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
    ¶ 23 Because witnesses may testify only to matters recalled and recorded before hypnosis, , if the state failed to prove that Nolan Luster had not been successfully hypnotized, it would have been error to permit her to testify about the later identification
  • Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
  • Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
    -32 , -80 (1981) (hypnotically induced testimony); Valdez
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    -47 , -95 (App. 1980), approved in part, vacated in part
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Lopez 887 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1994
    The trial court, in granting the motion to suppress, , and the original opinion in State ex rel.
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
    Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 431 , 661 P.2d at 1132 ; -29 , -77 (1981).
  • 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
    Discussion To guard against the adverse effects of hypnosis on the reliability of testimony, our supreme court held that “testimony from witnesses who have been questioned under hypnosis regarding the subject of their offered testimony [is] inadmissible in criminal trials from the time of the hypnotic session forward.”
  • State Ex Rel. Neely v. Sherrill 799 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Neely v. Sherrill 799 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1990
    In Collins I, , and held that the testimony of a hypnotized witness was per se inadmissible and that a hypnotized witness was incompetent to testify concerning any matter that was the subject of the hypnotic session, including matters recalled before hypnosis.
  • State v. Sherrill 781 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Sherrill 781 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    The trial court granted the defendant’s motion in limine, precluding the hypnotized victims from testifying at trial in light of the supreme court’s
  • 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
    and, therefore, according to the decision in State ex rel.
  • Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McMurtrey 664 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1983
    appellant filed a motion seeking to preclude Taylor from testifying at trial on the grounds that Taylor was incompetent to testify because he had been hypnotized.
  • 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
    I. HYPNOSIS ISSUE The state’s first argument on appeal requests this court to limit the cases of State v. La Mountain, supra, , to their facts and not adopt a per se rule precluding a witness from testifying after hypnosis has been used to refresh the witness’s memory.
  • State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
    Collins v. Superior Court, etc., , , a witness is incompetent to testify about events recalled after hypnosis.
  • State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
    the law provides a witness is incompetent to testify to facts recalled after hypnosis.
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
    Was testimony in this instance of a , harmless error?
  • Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • Criticized Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Stolp 650 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Stolp 650 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1982
  • Overruled State v. Encinas 647 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1982
    existed at the time of this appeal, appellate counsel, for whatever reason, did not raise the issue in this appeal concerning a hypnotized witness.
  • 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
    Silva’s , and filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the seven previously hypnotized witnesses.
  • 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. Blanchard 315 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1982
  • 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.