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. Cruz, 627 P.2d 689.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Miranda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Allred, 134 Ariz. at 277; –41 (1981).
  • State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    ¶25 We are mindful that in Allred our supreme court primarily was concerned that the truth-finding objectives of trial would be “compromised when the key issue of guilt or innocence is likely to turn upon resolution of an issue of credibility in a ‘swearing contest’ between interested witnesses.” 134 Ariz. at 277-78, 655 P.2d at 1329-30; (prior inconsistent statement inadmissible where “possibility of prejudice is inordinately high and the reliability of the statement requires resolution of a sw
  • Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
  • Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
    801 cmt.; Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 803.02 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 2003); (Haw.
  • State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 19 , , defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to improperly use impeachment testimony for substantive purposes.
  • State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    The defendant, , also argues that the testimony, even if admissible, should have been kept out because it proves premeditation, which is an element of the offense of which he was convicted.
  • State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Defendant urges that her statements were not hearsay but prior inconsistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)
  • 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
    Appellant asserts, however
  • State v. Carr 743 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Carr 743 P.2d 1386 Ariz. 1987
    Defendant’s principal argument is not that the statement is not an excited utterance
  • State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Beck 726 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    Therefore this is not the “swearing contest”
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Appellant contends that this testimony is a
  • State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Appellant contends that the admission of Klettlinger’s
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Martin 663 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    “The resolution of this question depends on whether there is reasonable possibility under the facts that the verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.”
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1326 Ariz. 1982
    to support this proposition.
  • State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Palomarez 657 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Allred 655 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    the court was faced with this situation.
  • State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Druke 644 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    id of his parents; talked about shooting them or killing them; talked about it over a couple of days; his reasons for wanting to take their lives, such as ‘to be free’; any attempts to convince Joey to go along with him, either in the plans to kill his parents or in the suggested cover-up by making the incident look like a burglary or a robbery.” , mandated exclusion of these statements, which tended to prove the defendant’s guilt.
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981