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. Williams, 698 P.2d 678.

88 citing documents.

  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
    Consistent with this general rule, we have observed that “a major crime entails such an injury to and disregard of the rights of other persons that it can reasonably be expected the witness will be untruthful if it is to his advantage.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    On-the-Scene “Show-Up” Identification ¶ 31 Defendant, , argues that “show-up” identification procedures are inherently suggestive and that their only justification is to ensure that suspects are detained no longer than necessary before determining whether there is sufficient basis for arrest.
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Hummer 911 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Lopez 845 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Lopez 845 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Thompson 803 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Thompson 803 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    (§ 13-604.02, armed robbery and aggravated assault); , (§ 13-604.01, sexual assault); , (§ 13-604.01, manslaughter); , (§ 13-604.01, armed robbery); , (§ 13-604.01, accomplice to armed robbery); , (§ 13-604,01, burglary and assault).
  • State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
    (holding one man show-up to be inherently suggestive).
  • State v. Hudson 763 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Hudson 763 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1988
    A detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s
  • State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
    Finally, , found no prejudice in a post-verdict amendment substituting a third felony conviction for one of the two convictions alleged before trial.
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Bloomer 751 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
    -99 , -52 (1986) (not cruel and unusual); State v. Allie, 147 * (no equal protection violation); -45 , -90 (1985) (no equal protection violation and not cruel and unusual).
  • State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Harris 730 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Rendon 715 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986