Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Allred, 655 P.2d 1326.

50 citing documents.

State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
613(b); ¶ 41 (2013); –77 (1982); cf. Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
to argue that admission of Tess’s statements to Officer Graham and the forensic nurse were more prejudicial than probative.
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
801(d)(1)(A), other evidentiary rules may preclude admission of such evidence, –77 (1982).3 To be admissible, a prior inconsistent statement used for substantive purposes must also comply with Arizona Rule of Evidence 403.
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Admissibility of Testimony as to Count 7 ¶9 Puente next argues that the superior court erred by allowing unfairly prejudicial impeachment evidence from Anabelle and Detective Bell, and without those statements there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for Count 7.4 Puente did not object to Anabelle’s testimony.
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶8 Nor did the superior court commit fundamental error in admitting the prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of Loader’s -78 (1982).
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶18 our supreme court acknowledged the danger of unfair prejudice when impeachment evidence is used for substantive purposes.
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
B. Discussion ¶21 P.2d 1326 (1982), Craft argues the trial court erred when it allowed the State to use the friend’s prior inconsistent statements to not only impeach the friend, but as substantive evidence Craft possessed the pipe with the intent to ingest methamphetamine.
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(setting forth factors to consider in addressing Rule 403 objection to prior inconsistent statements).
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
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
But, P.2d parties’ pleadings, and Salazar-Mercado has provided no authority that the court was required to “apply” the cases he cited.
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
Considering the factors identified in 28 the trial court further found that the statements were not unduly prejudicial.
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. Miller 928 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Miller 928 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In this case, in considering whether to allow the state to present testimony of the victim’s prior inconsistent statements, , in which the supreme court recognized the danger of unfair prejudice when allowing impeaching statements to be used substantively and outlined factors for the trial court to weigh regarding admissibility.
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Petzoldt’s , for the proposition that such hearsay evidence may not be used as the sole evidence to convict is misplaced.
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
-78 , -30 (1982) (unfair prejudice in use of impeachment testimony indicated if true purpose of offer is substantive use of statement rather than impeachment of witness or if impeachment testimony is only evidence of guilt); see generally M. Udall and J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 124 (2d ed.1
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. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1986
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1986
1 , and concluded that the prior inconsistent statements could be used as substantive evidence of the crime, even if they were the only evidence of the crime.
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
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1986
In a subsequent case, , this court set forth a list of factors to be considered when impeaching testimony is used for substantive purposes.
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
however, holds that a statement otherwise admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) should be excluded under Rule 403 if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion or misleading the jury.” That test, the court held, was met when the alleged maker
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
*256 , for determining the danger of unfair prejudice when such testimony is used for substantive purposes.