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. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
    Although a defendant has the right to an appeal in a criminal case, the appeal must be properly initiated, , the record on appeal must contain the material to which objection is made, , and the defendant must raise and argue the issue relied upon in the appeal.
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
    17A A.R.S., Rules of Evid., Rule 403
  • Waitkus v. Mauet 757 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Waitkus v. Mauet 757 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    citing Rule 32.8(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
    at 141-42 , 568 P.2d at 1039-40
  • State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Anzivino 716 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Kangas 704 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Kangas 704 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Block v. Meyer 696 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Block v. Meyer 696 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” , : While wide latitude should be granted in cross-examination, (citation omitted) this does not confer a license to run at large, and the trial court can curtail cross-examination’s scope.
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    As noted in State v. McDaniel, supra, “proof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.” at 515 , at 168 (1982) that, “[t]his issue of competency of trial counsel now appears to be increasingly more popular with appellate counsel, and we have some concern that maligned trial counsel have little opportunity to defend their handling of a criminal case.