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. Chapple, 660 P.2d 1208.

392 citing documents.

  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    (holding that errors in admitting evidence were reversible only after concluding that the errors were prejudicial).
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
    Moreover, , (expert testimony on eyewitness identification properly excluded in "great majority” of cases).
  • Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Expert testimony is inappropriate if “the jury is qualified without such testimony ‘to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject.’” , (quoting Fed.R.Evid.
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
    See, , , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • A. UBERTI AND C. v. Leonardo 868 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
  • A. UBERTI AND C. v. Leonardo 868 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
    Ariz.R.P.Spec.Aetions 3(c); , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    er Rules 702, 703, and 403 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, expert testimony must “(1) come from a qualified expert, (2) be reliable, (3) aid the trier of fact in evaluating and understanding matters not within their common experience, and (4) have probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect.” -81 , -51 (1986) ( , ).
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    (it is error to admit inflammatory photographs unrelated to the only contested issue in the case).
  • State v. Strong 875 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Strong 875 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    Appellant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification
  • State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Luzanilla 861 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Benson 860 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Benson 860 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Exercise of that discretion, the court held, required “that both parties ‘have the opportunity to present conflicting facts and equitable considerations.’ ” Smith, 166 Ariz. at 120 , 800 P.2d at 986 ( , ).
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    -81 , -51 (1986) (setting forth requirements for admissibility of expert testimony).
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Monge 842 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Monge 842 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1992
    We are deferential to the trial court’s factual findings because that court has “an opportunity to see the parties, lawyers and witnesses.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983); accord Winegar, 147 Ariz. at 445 , 711 P.2d at 584 .
  • General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    However, where the facts are not disputed, and “there are few or no conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations, the resolution of the question is one of law or logic.” Id., , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Smith 800 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Smith 800 P.2d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Stabler 783 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    The trial court granted the motion, explaining that the instant case was not the unusual
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    898 , 88 L.Ed.2d 932 (1986)