Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
4 See, -31 , -13 (1982) (applying inherent tendency test to uphold trial court’s Rule 403 determination).
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Elia v. Pifer 977 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(setting forth test for harmless error).
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
The trial judge is afforded discretion to determine whether the probative value of relevant evidence “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” , (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Haynes v. Syntek Finance Corp. 909 P.2d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ayala 873 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Ayala 873 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Cohen 844 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1992
-32 , -14 (1982) (decided under previous version of the statute which did not limit the privilege to testimony concerning events which occurred during the marriage)
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.’ ”
State v. Cook 834 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Cook 834 P.2d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vickers 768 P.2d 1177 Ariz. 1989
The weighing and balancing of the probative value against the prejudice of evidence is “within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it has been clearly abused.”
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
State v. Bojorquez 729 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Bojorquez 729 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
the Arizona Supreme Court stated: The test for determining harmless error is “whether or not there was reasonable probability ...
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
600 n. 8, , 131 n. 8 (1983) (quoting comment, Rule 704, Ariz.R.Evid., 17A A.R.S.); , (expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome admissible on lack of consent, not guilt issue); -28 , -10 (1982) (opinions of witnesses regarding truthfulness and guilt are generally inadmissible).
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
(erroneous admission of evidence which is entirely cumulative constitutes harmless error)
State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Thompson 707 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.” , (
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1985