Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tucker, 759 P.2d 579.

88 citing documents.

State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
-46 , -92 (1988) (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(impeaching a witness under Arizona law with prior felony conviction is limited to showing the fact of the conviction, the name of the crime, the place, and the date).
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(fingerprint evidence does not possess “exculpatory value”).
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-43 , -89 (1988) (reaching similar conclusion in case in which defendant challenged sufficiency of Willits instruction).
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-506561 893 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In its brief, the state incorrectly asserts that "[m]anslaughter is a lesser included offense of first degree murder,” (emphasis added), relying on a
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. 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. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
-44 , -90 (1988); -65 , -61 (1990); -16 , -67 (1989), aff'd, -U.S.
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
(first considering federal due process under Arizona v. Youngblood, and then Willits); , (applying bad faith standard before Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Youngblood ).
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bravo 762 P.2d 1318 Ariz. 1988
(finding that an intoxicated defendant’s statements were voluntary within the meaning of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and were not obtained in violation of his fifth amendment rights).