Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roscoe, 700 P.2d 1312.

123 citing documents.

State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
the exhibits were “disturbing” and “sad,” the judge also noted that “the jury knows [the State is] talking about the death of a child.” And as the court reasoned, photographs cannot be deemed sufficiently gruesome to inflame the jurors when, as here, “the crime committed was so atrocious that photographs could add little to the repugnance felt by anyone who heard the testimony.”
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[C]are should be taken to see that the foundation does indicate that the results from use of the dog are reliable.
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[T]here must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” ().
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
act is used to prove identity than where such evidence is offered to prove emotional propensity or state of mind.” State v. Roscoe (Roscoe I)
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Normann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
“While identity in every particular is not required, there must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects when normally there could be expected to be found differences.” State v. Roscoe (Roscoe I), (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
If so, the evidence may be admissible and any dissimilarities go to its weight.”) (-18, -18 (1984)).
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“While identity in every particular is not required, there must be similarities between the offenses in those important aspects ‘when normally there could be expected to be found differences.’” ( ).
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency 728 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields 35 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, , (dog tracking); Baroldy v. Ortho Pharm.
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Explained Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(evidence of the defendant’s earlier abduction and sexual attack of a young girl admitted in a case involving the same offenses against another young girl).
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
While defendant suggests that “effective representation requires that counsel pursue all available defenses,” , this court has determined that “defense counsel is not required to argue the absurd or impossible.”
State v. Boles 933 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1997
State v. Boles 933 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1997
Hummert, 124, 933 P.2d at 1192
State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
State v. Hummert 933 P.2d 1187 Ariz. 1997
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
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rodriguez 921 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hurles 914 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1996
(under Rule 404, offense not too remote when committed within six months after defendant’s release from prison for the prior offense).
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995