Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 663 P.2d 236.

36 citing documents.

State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) provides that a declarant’s prior consistent statements are admissible if made “before the existence of facts that indicate a bias arises.” Castillo, 1 CA-CR 19-0224, at *3, ¶ 21 ().
State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶22 Alston contends that concluding the hearsay statements did not affect the verdict is impossible.
State v. Schmitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Schmitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
ed it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (ii) to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground.” The Arizona Supreme Court has found that a statement is admissible under subsection (i) only if the witness “make[s] the prior consistent statement before the existence of facts that indicate a bias arises.”
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(a “parade of corroborating witnesses” repeating inadmissible hearsay bolstering a victim’s credibility may be prejudicial).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶21 To rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive, the statement must have been made “before the existence of facts that indicate a bias arises.”
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-133607
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-133607 920 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-133607 920 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Defendant contends that the court erred by admitting the social workers’
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that “the parade of corroborating witnesses had no influence on the jury’s deliberations,” , and therefore cannot find the erroneous admission of these hearsay statements harmless error.
State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985