DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Chapple, 660 P.2d 1208.

392 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    See, 296-97, 1223-24 (1983) (expert testimony regarding general reliability of eye-witness identification admissible without any opinion regarding accuracy of specific identification made by witnesses); (expert testimony regard
  • State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
    ¶47 “[T]he fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.”
  • State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    The trial court abuses its discretion when “the reasons given by the court for its actions are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    11 legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n.18, n.18 (1983).
  • State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Mieg 239 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    A court abuses its discretion when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
    “to show the nature and location of the fatal injury, to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, to corroborate state witnesses, to illustrate or explain testimony, and to corroborate the state’s theory of how and why the homicide was committed,”
  • State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
    Autopsy photographs are admissible to “show the nature and location of the fatal injury, to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, to corroborate state witnesses, to illustrate or explain testimony, and to corroborate the state’s theory of how and why the homicide was committed.”
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    A court abuses its discretion when the reasons it gives for its conclusions are “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Aguilar 230 P.3d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Similarly, an abuse of discretion also occurs when a discretionary finding of fact is “not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 *301 (1983).
  • AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    v. Microsoft Corp., ¶ 17 , ( , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983)).
  • Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Francis v. Sanders 215 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Co., , , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983)).
  • Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    297 n. 18, , 1228 n. 18 (1983).
  • State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    can better assess the impact of what occurs before him.” 7 n.18, n.18 (1983).
  • State v. Childress 214 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Childress 214 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n. 18 , , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Newell 210 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Newell 210 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    An abuse of discretion occurs where the court’s reasons for its actions are “clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
    (stating that we review determinations about whether evidence satisfies the requisite legal standard de novo); n.18, n.18 (1983) (noting that determinations made on undisputed facts present questions of “law or logic”).
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    See Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., 9 (“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion.”); see also State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297 n.18, n.18 (1983) (appellate court not bound by trial court’s discretionary rulings when “the facts or inferences from them are not in dispute and where there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations”)
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
    The photograph here was relevant to assist the jury “because the fact and cause of death are always relevant in a murder prosecution.” Spreitz, 190 Ariz. at 142, 945 P.2d at 1273 ( ).
  • State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (“Exhibits which have the tendency to cause prejudice may often be admissible despite offers to stipulate or the absence of controverting or contradicting evidence.”); (despite defendant’s offer to stipulate, trial court d
  • State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).