DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

123 citing documents.

  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “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.’ ” , cert.
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
    -21 , -21 (1984) (holding foundation to be suf *305 ficient where witness explained the particular training and methods employed), cert.
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    To be admissible under the 404(b) identity exception, the state must show: (1) that the defendant committed the prior act; and (2) that “the prior act was not too remote in time, was similar to the offense charged and was committed with a person similar to the prosecuting witness in the case being tried.” Bible, 175 Ariz. at 575 , 858 P.2d at 1178 ( , cert.
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Stuard 863 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1993
    The general rule, of course, is that other “bad acts are not admissible to prove the bad character of the perpetrator.” , cert.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
    Such photographs cannot be deemed sufficiently gruesome to inflame the jurors because “the crime committed was so atrocious that photographs could add little to the repugnance felt by anyone who heard the testimony.” , cert.
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    (affirming death sentence of defendant who was convicted of first degree felony murder and who intended to kill or knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would cause death); Schad, 129 Ariz. at 573-74 , 6
  • State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
    3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 (1989), , , cert.
  • Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    Walton, 159 Ariz. at 589 , 769 P.2d at 1035 ; -27 , -27 (1985) (age cannot be considered in a vacuum).
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
    (citing Frye, 293 F. at 1014 ).
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
    3200 , 105 L.Ed.2d 708 (1989) (defendant clamped hand over victim’s mouth to muffle her screams, causing her to vomit, reflecting the “terror and horror” experienced by the victim); , (facts showed infliction of both mental distress and great physical pain, including sexual assaults, on child prior to death).
  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Hinchey 799 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valles 780 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1989
    -18 , -18 (1984) (in a murder prosecution, testimony of victim of defendant’s prior assault with a deadly weapon was admissible to prove identify when modus operandi showed significant similarities between the two crimes).
  • Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    227 P. 995, 996-97 (1924).
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
    State v. Fulminante, CR-86-0053-AP (Ariz.1988)
  • State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Weatherbee 762 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988