Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schrock, 719 P.2d 1049.
- State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. McDonald 960 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. McDonald 960 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
-
State v. Lee
944 P.2d 1222
Ariz. 1997
460, 464 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984)
- State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
-
State v. Riggs
942 P.2d 1159
Ariz. 1997
(holding that we will not disturb a trial court’s decision to limit cross-examination absent a showing in the record of clear abuse of discretion).
- State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
- State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
-
State v. Walden
905 P.2d 974
Ariz. 1995
“It is only when the instructions taken as a whole are such that it is reasonable to suppose the jury would be misled thereby that a case should be reversed for error therein.”
- State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
-
State v. Gallegos
870 P.2d 1097
Ariz. 1994
“It is only when the instructions taken as a whole are such that it is reasonable to suppose the jury would be misled thereby that a ease should be reversed for error therein.”
- State v. Wilson 875 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Wilson 875 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Puls 860 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Puls 860 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Lautzenheiser 864 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Church 854 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Church
854 P.2d 137
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
accord Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 , 98 S.Ct.
- 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
-37 , -52 (1986) (improper to preclude two undisclosed state’s witnesses from testifying since less stringent sanctions available); Fendler v. Goldsmith, 728 F.2d 1181, 1190 (9th Cir. 1984) (exclusion of nondisclosed defense witness who was vital to defense was improper under balancing test even
- State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
-
State v. Cook
821 P.2d 731
Ariz. 1991
(“The failure to object to an instruction either before or at the time it is given waives any error, absent fundamental error.”).
- State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
- State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
- State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989