Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Geschwind, 666 P.2d 460.

34 citing documents.

State v. Melgoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Melgoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–63 (1983) (citation and quotation omitted).
State v. Lara 379 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lara 379 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
our supreme 3 STATE v. COONEY Opinion of the Court court held that, based on Rule 19.1(b), Ariz. R. Crim.
Robbins v. Darrow 148 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Robbins v. Darrow 148 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(holding that when prior conviction is element of charged crime court cannot preclude evidence of prior conviction as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial); see also Galati 195 Ariz. at 11, ¶ 13, 985 P.2d at 496 (recognizing importance of submitting all elements of crime to jury); Newnom
State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Galati; -63, -63 (1983).
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
Relying upon Rule 19.1.b of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 19.1.b) and this court’s , and distinguishing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 , 117 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Galati 973 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Galati 973 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Distinguished State v. Root 973 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Brito 905 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(holding defendant not entitled to bifurcated trial on issue of prior DUI convictions because existence of prior DUIs is an element of the substantive offense of aggravated DUI); , (holding evidence of underlying crime admissible where legislature has included such conduct as an element of crime for which defendant is on trial).
State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Evidence of a suspended license, whether in the form of a stipulation or proof offered by the state, cannot be precluded as prejudicial because it is an “integral part of the crime with which appellant was charged.”
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
1 , (bifurcated trial not required for felony DUI charge because the defendant’s prior DUI conviction is an element of the offense).
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Udall 717 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1986
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Udall 717 P.2d 878 Ariz. 1986
The State urges this court to follow the rationale of State v. Geschwind, 136 Ariz. *200 360
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Distinguished State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
in support of the position that the defense may not force any stipulation on the state.
State v. Yellowmexican 688 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Yellowmexican 688 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
O'Hara v. Superior Ct. of State of Ariz. 674 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1983
O'Hara v. Superior Ct. of State of Ariz. 674 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1983
In support of its position
State v. Mitchell 666 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1983
State v. Mitchell 666 P.2d 464 Ariz. 1983
Already pending before us on petition for review, when the state’s petition herein was granted, , wherein we had agreed to review an appeal decided by Division Two.