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. Zuck, 658 P.2d 162.

173 citing documents.

  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    ("The court may prevent cross-examination into collateral matters of a personal nature having minor probative value.").
  • In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Thomas R. 233 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    When “matters are not included in the record on appeal, the missing portions of the record will be presumed to support the action of the trial court.’’
  • State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
    contains the material to which they take exception.” - 13, -66 (1982).
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
  • Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    Because, however, the “evidence [was] objected to on one ground [that is, late disclosure] and admitted over the objection, other grounds not specified [such as hearsay] are waived.”
  • Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -27 , -94 (App.1991); -15 , -68 (1982).
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
    See Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. at 244 , 921 P.2d at 647 ( , ); , (“Rule 8.2 does not grant the appellant any ‘fundamental right’ which cannot be waived by his counsel.”).
  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
    (holding that we will not disturb a trial court’s decision to limit cross-examination absent a showing in the record of clear abuse of discretion).
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
    The trial court has no such obligation, because “the delays sought by [defendant’s] attorney are binding on him and have the effect of waiving his right to a speedy trial even though done without his consent.”
  • State v. Mendoza 891 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Mendoza 891 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Cuffle 828 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Cuffle 828 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1992
    Under a direct ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an attorney should be allowed to defend himself, at least with regard to the particular contentions asserted, by revealing “at least that much of what was previously privileged as is necessary____” Moreno, 128 Ariz. at 260 , 625 P.2d at 323
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
    The standards used under the federal constitution to determine whether a delay is sufficient to reverse a conviction are: “1) length of the delay, 2) reason for the delay, 3) defendant’s assertion of the right, and 4) prejudice caused the defendant.” -15 , -68 (1982) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    (court rejected argument that affidavit providing basis for search warrant was defective because the affidavit was never admitted into evidence); , (court rejected argument that motion to suppress should have been granted because counsel for the defense never introduced the warrant and attached list into evidence); -13 , -66 (1982).
  • State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
    (evidence admitted over objection at trial cannot be objected to on new grounds on appeal); , (evidence objected to on one ground and admitted, waives other grounds for objection not specified).
  • State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989