Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Chapple, 660 P.2d 1208.
- Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
- Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Bojorquez 702 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
State v. Bojorquez
702 P.2d 1346
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983): Something is discretionary because it is based on an assessment of conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations which vary from case to case and which can be better determined or resolved by the trial judge, who has a more immediate grasp of all the facts
- State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Bracy 703 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Campbell 706 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
-
State v. Campbell
706 P.2d 741
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
1000 , 25 L.Ed.2d 257 (1970)
- State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
- Followed State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler 697 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1985
-
City of Phoenix v. Geyler
697 P.2d 1073
Ariz. 1985
This process is sometimes, unfortunately, described as a determination that the trial judge “abused his discretion.” , 297 n. 18, , 1224 n. 18 (1983) (citations omitted).
- State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Dickson 693 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1985
- State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Roscoe
700 P.2d 1312
Ariz. 1984
we held that where offered exhibits have a capacity to incite passion or inflame the jury, the court must go beyond the question of relevancy and consider whether the probative value of the exhibit outweighs the danger of prejudice created by admission.
- State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Ramirez 688 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
-
State v. Ramirez
688 P.2d 1063
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
*175 , the court stated that the language in State v. Mohr, supra, should not be interpreted to mean that any photograph which is relevant may be admitted despite its tendency to prejudice the jury.
- State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Gonzales 681 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1984
- State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Summerlin 675 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1983
- State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
- State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Roberts 677 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Routhier 669 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Lamas 666 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
State v. Lamas
666 P.2d 94
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Recently, , at 1224 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.1983), in defining “abuse of discretion” stated: Something is discretionary because it is based on an assessment of conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations which vary from case to case and which can be better determined or resolved by the trial judge, who has a