DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 681 P.2d 1374.

45 citing documents.

  • In Re Delinquency of G.G. 562 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • In Re Delinquency of G.G. 562 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (holding that it was reversible error to preclude the testimony of an alibi witness who was vital to the defense when the State was aware of the witness’s existence before trial and the non-disclosure was not due to bad faith, and that less stringent sanctions, such as granting a continuance, should have b
  • State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    ¶14 Ramos nevertheless argues that his case is “analogous” P.2d 1374 (1984).
  • State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
    ¶92 To determine whether witnesses should be precluded from testifying, courts should assess four criteria: “(1) how vital the witness is to the case, (2) whether the opposing party will be surprised, (3) whether the discovery violation was motivated by bad faith, and (4) any other relevant circumstances.” State v. (Joe U.) Smith
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    P. 15.7(a) (setting forth non-exclusive list of sanctions available to court to impose for disclosure violations); (referring to “four criteria for determining whether the sanction of preclusion should be imposed: (1) how vital the witness is to the case, (2) whether the opposing party will be surprised, (3) whether the discovery violation was motivated by bad faith, and (4) any other relevant circ
  • Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
  • State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
  • State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Not only was the state surprised by the divulgence of this witness, , but his tardy disclosure was attributable solely to the defendant, who offered no excuse.
  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Killean 915 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Killean 915 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1996
    Once the willfulness of the behavior is clear
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Normally, we would review the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in light of the factors set forth in State v. (Joe U.) Smith
  • Kennedy v. Carlson 544 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1996
  • Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
  • Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    and determined that Arizona courts reviewing the preclusion of a criminal defendant’s evidence should continue to use the four-part test enumerated by the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. (Joe U.) Smith
  • Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
  • Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
    (warning “that accepting mores cases than can be properly handled may result not only in reversals for failing to adequately represent clients, but [also] in disciplinary action”); ER 1.3 (comment) (“A lawyer’s workload should be controlled so that each matter can be handled adequatel
  • 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. (Joe U.) Smith, , State v. Tucker, 157 Ariz. at 440, 759 P.2d at 586 .
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
    State v. (Joe U.) Smith, , State v. (Joseph Clarence Sr.) Smith
  • State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Smith 705 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    (prejudice presumed because of the “excessive if not crushing” caseload imposed on public defenders in Mohave County).
  • State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Johnson 702 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    Defense counsel objected, , she was required to allow the state to admit the testimony and that preclusion would be improper.
  • State v. Wargo 703 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Wargo 703 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985