Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rivera, 678 P.2d 1373.

63 citing documents.

State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
The declarant’s physical and emotional condition is most important to the analysis, and “[t]he statements need not be made immediately after the event, nor at the place of the event, and, in the case of children, ‘where excitement may last longer’, courts have extended the time factor requirement.”
State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“[R]elevancy is the unifying requisite factor for the admissibility of statements for non-hearsay purposes.”); Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez 537 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez 537 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Although a victim’s emotional state can change with the passage of time, (discussing time factor in excited utterance determination, stating that “the length of time such stress will last varies among individuals”), remoteness 9 STATE v. SANCHEZ Opinion of the Court generally goe
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
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 Hearsay is a “‘statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.’” - 11 (1984) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
(citing 6 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 1750 (Chadbourn rev. 1978)).
State v. Parks 116 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Parks 116 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
.’ ”) ( , ) (emphasis supplied).
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
quoting Morris K. Udall & Joseph M. Livermore, Arizona Law of Evidence § 127, at 270 (2d ed.1982).
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Our supreme court also has noted, albeit in dictum: "We have already recognized the necessity of a liberal interpretation of the rules in cases involving child molesting and would, no doubt, reach a similar result in cases involving child abuse and similar crimes.” , 413 n. 1, , 1377 n. 1 (1984).
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Moreover, “[[Incidents involving rape or other sexual offenses have long been viewed as presenting unique circumstances when the spontaneous utterance exception is sought to be applied— Generally a less demanding time aspect is required.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
tatement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to.prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that, if relevant, extrajudicial “words or writings offered to prove the effect on the hearer or reader are admissible where offered to show their effect on one whose conduct is in issue.”
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(appellate courts will not reverse trial court’s ruling under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule absent clear abuse of discretion); State v. Veres, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Simms 863 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Simms 863 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(“The statement in question is a simple assertion of appellant’s conduct.
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
The excited utterance exception relies upon the assumption that “the excitement of certain startling events stills the reflective faculties,” , thus rendering statements made at the time of or under stress caused by a startling event inherently trustworthy.
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Hernandez 823 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Anaya 799 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Rule 801(c), Arizona Rules of Evidence
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
Conversely, a statement is not hearsay if “offered for some valid purpose other than to prove the matter asserted in the statement.” -14 , -78 (1984); see generally 1 M. Udall & J. Livermore, Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 122 (2d ed.1982).
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
aff'd in part and remanded on other grounds
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989