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. Ferguson, 717 P.2d 879.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    The decision whether to grant a mistrial is “a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of discretion, its decision will not be disturbed.”
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See Martin, 205 Ariz. at 283, ¶ 17 , 69 P.3d at 1004 (“Rule 609(a)(1) turns not on the technical definition of a felony, but rather on the maximum potential sentence that could be imposed for the prior crime.”); , (finding that military court martial would be admissible for impeachment if it met all of the Rule 609 criteria); Morris K. Udall & Joseph M. Livermore, 1 Arizona Law of Evidence § 47, at 85-86 (3d ed.1991).
  • State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    see also Gibson, ¶¶ 3, 7, 19-20, 44 P.3d at 1002-03, 1004 (remanding for redetermination of whether evidence of third parties‟ nervousness and “severe mental health problems shortly after the murder” admissible under Rules 401, 402, and 403).
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    The defendant’s right to compulsory process includes the right to “formulate his defense uninhibited by government conduct that, in effect, prevents him from interviewing witnesses who may be involved and from determining whether he will subpoena and call them in his defense.” , (quoting United States v. Tsutagawa, 500 F.2d 420, 423 (9th Cir.1974)).
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
    (holding that trial court’s refusal to give any motive instruction was not fundamental error in part because the defense theory was adequately covered in closing arguments); , (same).
  • State v. Hatfield 840 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Hatfield 840 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
    the court upheld a determination that a confession was voluntary despite the fact that the police officer had appealed to the defendant’s conscience and suggested that he might be able to provide information that would explain his actions.
  • State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 831 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    In a similar situation, , a defendant who was aware that he was being charged with first-degree murder voluntarily stated that he was going to plead insanity because, “it was the only way out.
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Vierra 785 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Vierra 785 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. McKinley 755 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. McKinley 755 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Halpin 738 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Halpin 738 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)