Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sullivan, 635 P.2d 501.

67 citing documents.

State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Schlicher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
make a finding on the record that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.”
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(error non-prejudicial where court sustained defense objection and question was not answered); (no reversible error where jurors promptly instructed to disregard statement after objection).
State v. Malerba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Malerba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[I]t is obviously unreasonable to require the State to list in advance of trial and prior to the presentation of the defendant’s case the names of all potential rebuttal witnesses, since the prosecution can rarely anticipate what course the defense will pursue.” –17 (1981) (); –88 (App. 1996) (concluding the untimely disclosure of a witness, resulting in the witness’s preclusion during the State’s case-in- chief, did not require preclusion on rebuttal).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“We review the court’s interpretation of a constitutional right de novo,” ¶ 4 (App. 2009), and its denial of a request for a continuance in order to substitute counsel for an abuse of discretion, ().
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In fact, the decision to grant a defendant’s request for a continuance to acquire counsel of choice is “left to the sound discretion of the trial [court],” and will only be disturbed for an abuse of discretion and if the defendant demonstrates prejudice.
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cahill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–97, –10 (1993) (concluding that “prosecutor’s statements about justice and protecting society” were not improper); (“[A]rguments referring to the prevalence of crime, the duty of the jury, and the efforts of the police in combatting crime are not improper.”)
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barr 175 P.3d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding no abuse of discretion in denying motion to continue when defendant had five months to prepare for trial).
State v. Beasley 70 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
-18 , -06 (1981) (holding that prejudice from a question that violated Doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered); , (holding that prejudice from question concerning the treatment of defendants
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
3 Our su *483 preme court has held, however, that “arguments referring to the prevalence of crime, the duty of the jury, and the efforts of the police in combatting crime are not improper.” , 219
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
over a strong dissent by Justice Gordon, the supreme court approved the admission of evidence that the defendant had a prior conviction for possession of a narcotic drug.
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
Once the state establishes probativeness, the defendant is “permitted to rebut the State’s showing of relevancy by pointing out the prejudicial effect ____”
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984