Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bailey, 647 P.2d 170.

33 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
However, a prosecutor may not insinuate that an expert is unethical or incompetent without properly admitted evidence to support it.” –79 (1982).
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lujan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Winston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The State is barred from intimating “that an expert is unethical or incompetent without properly admitted evidence to support it.”
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Criticized State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
But prosecutors are otherwise “given wide latitude in argument.”
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
their comments must be based on the evidence or reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it.” (emphasis added).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
¶21 A prosecutor may “inquire into the credentials and employment of an expert witness to show bias or motive,” but cannot 8 STATE V. LYNCH Opinion of the Court “insinuate that an expert is unethical or incompetent without properly admitted evidence to support it.” –79, –77 (1982).
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
see also Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 61, 969 P.2d at 1198 (holding that “arguing that all mental health experts are fools or frauds who say whatever they are paid to say” was prosecutorial misconduct).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
isobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists[.]” One such obligation is that a prosecutor cannot “imply unethical conduct on the part of an expert witness without having evidence to support the accusation.” Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 86, ¶ 59, 969 P.2d at 1198 (citing State v. Bailey, 132 Ariz. 472, 479, ).
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Pereida 825 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
-78 , -76 (1982); M. UDALL & J. LIVERMORE, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 47 at 93 (2nd ed.1982).
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
State v. Gamez 696 P.2d 1327 Ariz. 1985
1143 , 43 *180 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975) (introduction of mug shot or mention of mug shots error where it gives rise to inference defendant had a prior criminal record); , (admission of “mug shot” prejudicial error where jury told taken two months before subject crime); , (references to white surgical gloves found in defendant’s possession as being “burglar gloves” improper as implying that defendant had committed prior bad acts).
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Salcido 681 P.2d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
-79 , -77 (1982); , State v. Reim, 26 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by