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. Spoon, 669 P.2d 83.

28 citing documents.

  • Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Kool v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶15 “Reasonable discretion is given to the trial court in determining relevancy of offered evidence, and such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly has been abused.”
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (instruction stating, ‘You may de termine the defendant intended to do the act if he did it voluntarily” held constitutional because the use of the word “may” was permissive).
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (defendant’s statements that he “wanted to cut down a shotgun ‘in case he ever get (sic) hassled by pigs’ ” and that he would use the shotgun to “kill a pig if they (sic) get in my way” were admissible to prove premeditation in a homicide case where defendant asserted self-defense); , (defendant’s statement that victim “deserved it” because he “got up and slapped” defendant was probative and admissible to show defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing).
  • State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Klausner 978 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • West Pinal Family Health Center, Inc. v. McBryde 785 P.2d 66 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    While we recognize that the trial court must be afforded substantial discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence, , these facts do not have “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Ariz.R.
  • State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
    -10 , -88 (1983) (upholding same instruction).
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hensley 691 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lambright 673 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
    Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 , 97 S.Ct.
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Moya 672 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979)