Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 650 P.2d 1202.

173 citing documents.

State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” (citation omitted).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Thus, to the extent the trial court did preclude its admission, the court did not abuse its discretion, much less commit fundamental, prejudicial error.
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Williams , , 232, , 1214 (1982).
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
(stating that Rule 403 findings should not be disturbed unless the trial court abused its discretion).
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is harmless when the improperly admitted hearsay is “entirely cumulative”); (“Since the defendant, himself, had testified to substantially the same information as that contained in the hearsay statements, the issue which the statements tended to prove .
State v. J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(erroneous admission of evidence that is cumulative to other evidence admitted at trial constitutes harmless error) (citations omitted).
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 35 (App. 2014) () (stating introduction of cumulative evidence is “at most harmless error”).
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See, , (erroneous admission of hearsay harmless where cumulative to testimony at trial).
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶11 “Error is harmless if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not influence the verdict.” Johnson, 205 Ariz. at 421, ¶ 27, 72 P.3d at 351 (citation omitted); (“The test for determining harmless error is ‘whether there was reasonable probability .
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 33-34 (2012) (holding erroneous admission of coerced statements following invocation of right to remain silent did not prejudice defendant and was not fundamental error); (finding no prejudice where erroneously admitted statements were “merely cumulative to other testimony”).
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 38-41, (holding Confrontation Clause and hearsay rule violations are subject to harmless error analysis, and any such error was harmless because the objected-to testimony was “superfluous” to other witnesses’ testimony to the same effect); (“[E]rroneous admission of evidence which was entirely cumulative constitute[s] harmless error.”).
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Testimony Regarding Victim’s Character for Truthfulness ¶36 “Opinions of a witness regarding questions of truthfulness and guilt are generally inadmissible for a variety of reasons.“ -28, -10 (1982).
Angel O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Angel O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.'"
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“was telling the truth about what had happened to her at the hands of him.” , (erroneous admission of cumulative evidence is harmless error).
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“[T]he policy determination involving abrogation of the [anti-marital fact privilege] is an appropriate subject for legislative determination.”); Whitaker, 112 Ariz. at 540 , 544 P.2d at 222 (concluding that the anti-marital fact privilege “remains in effect in Arizona and this court
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.’ ”) ( , ).
State v. Gibson 44 P.3d 1001 Ariz. 2002
State v. Gibson 44 P.3d 1001 Ariz. 2002
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
¶44 We therefore assess the impact of inadmissible hearsay on the jury, , and conclude the Farrell hearsay testimony was highly incriminating, had a clear bearing on the charges against defendant, and likely affected the verdict.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed’ ”) (
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999