Cited by

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

392 citing documents.

State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130 Ariz. 1989
Moorman, 154 Ariz. at 586 , 744 P.2d at 687 ; -90 , -17 (1983).
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
Nikolous v. Superior Court 756 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1988
Nikolous v. Superior Court 756 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1988
1 , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (analysis of discretionary standard).
Harris v. Reserve Life Insurance 762 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Harris v. Reserve Life Insurance 762 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
n. 18 , n. 18 (1983) (citations omitted).
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Baroldy v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 760 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Distinguished State v. Stanley 753 P.2d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Chappie is readily distinguishable.
State v. Rushing 749 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1988
State v. Rushing 749 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1988
Defendant, , argues that the photographs should not have been admitted because their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
we held such testimony could be admitted if relevant and then adopted four criteria to evaluate such testimony.
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
375, 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 411 (1972)
State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
“[T]he court must go beyond the question of relevancy and consider whether the probative value of the exhibit outweighs the danger of prejudice by admission of the exhibit.”
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1986
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1986
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
State v. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Royer 724 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mauro 716 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1986
Furthermore, even though defense counsel may wish to stipulate to the photographs’ contents so as to avoid their use, we cannot compel the state “to try its case in a sterile setting.” -90 , -17 (1983).
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
State v. Correll 715 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1986
*476 , (citations omitted).
Security General Life Insurance v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1986
Security General Life Insurance v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1986
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
can better assess the impact of what occurs before him.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983).