Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Litzkuhn v. Clark, 339 P.2d 389.
- Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Zimmer v. Peters 861 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Massey v. Colaric 725 P.2d 1099 Ariz. 1986
-
Massey v. Colaric
725 P.2d 1099
Ariz. 1986
§ 24-523; 2 , Murdock v. Baile, supra
- Murdock v. Balle 696 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- Murdock v. Balle 696 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- State v. Schossow 703 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
- State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
- James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- Toney v. Bouthillier 631 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Garner 569 P.2d 1341 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Perez 514 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Perez 514 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Kaiser 508 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Kaiser 508 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1973
- Lewin v. Jackson 492 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1972
-
Lewin v. Jackson
492 P.2d 406
Ariz. 1972
43(c); , , Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 85, at p. 127.
- State v. Brown 425 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1967
- State v. Brown 425 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1967
- State v. Goodyear 404 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1965
-
State v. Goodyear
404 P.2d 397
Ariz. 1965
However, the rule in regard to the competency of a witness is first a , ; , ; , ; , 172 P. 662 .
- Davis v. Weber 380 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1963
-
Davis v. Weber
380 P.2d 608
Ariz. 1963
where in discussing and approving two decisions from the State of California, we said: “However, both of these decisions make it clear that it is the duty of the trial judge who has permitted a child to be sworn as a witness, at any time to change his mind upon due occasion therefor, to remove the child
- State v. Dominguez 348 P.2d 919 Ariz. 1960
-
State v. Dominguez
348 P.2d 919
Ariz. 1960
in passing under the right of a six year old child to testify stated: “ * * * In other words, their competency to testify is to be determined, not by their age, but by the degree of their understanding and knowledge.