DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sibley v. Jeffreys, 264 P.2d 831.

34 citing documents.

  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Haynes v. Switzer Real Estate Corp., 100 Ind.App.
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Henderson 569 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    and Chief Justice Burger’s well-known opinion in Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C.
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Ballinger 520 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. King 514 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1973
    Thus, for example, this court has held that a thirty year old conviction is not a valid impeachment device, , and that, likewise, a nineteen year old conviction for manslaughter does not reasonably reflect upon one’s credibility.
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Ross 485 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Reeden 477 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1970
  • Glubauer v. Smith 458 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Glubauer v. Smith 458 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    In Arizona, a witness may be impeached on cross-examination on the basis of a prior felony conviction, unless the conviction is “ * * * so remote that it cannot reasonably cast a reflection upon the witness’ credibility.” , , and see, generally, Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 67, at 103 et seq.
  • Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
  • Nielson v. Flashberg 419 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1966
    which states: “ ‘No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.’ “
  • State v. Armenta 402 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Armenta 402 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1965
  • Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
  • Kostolansky v. Lesher 387 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1963
    which states: “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”
  • State v. Barker 385 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Barker 385 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1963
    833: *386 “There is no exact yardstick to measure the time that must elapse to blot out the relevancy of such-former conviction; it is largely a matter of court discretion considering not only the time element but length of imprisonment, subsequent conduct, age and intervening circumstances.” In
  • Skousen v. Nidy 367 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1961
  • Skousen v. Nidy 367 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1961
    243 P. 601 (1926) ; Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 67, p. 104.
  • State v. Harvill 362 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1961
  • State v. Harvill 362 P.2d 663 Ariz. 1961
    Even though the prior conviction is unrelated in time, place, , , 833: “ * * *¿j. ¡s so ,remote that it cannot reasonably cast a reflection upon the witness’ credibility.
  • Sibley v. Jeffreys 305 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1956
  • Sibley v. Jeffreys 305 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1956
  • Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956
  • Musgrave v. Githens 294 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1956
  • Bean v. Gorby 292 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1956
  • Bean v. Gorby 292 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1956
  • General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954
  • General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker 269 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1954