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. Lindsey, 720 P.2d 73.

154 citing documents.

  • State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
    As we stated in State v. Lindsey, “[i]n essence the ‘open door’ or ‘invited error’ doctrine means ‘that a party cannot complain *61 about a result he caused.’” , (quoting M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11, at 11 (3d ed. 1991)).
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Grannis 900 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1995
    (stating that pretrial motion ruled on by court preserves issue for appeal even if counsel does not renew objection at trial).
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Gates 897 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Gates 897 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    section 13-3551(2)(f)), aff'g in part, , , (finding that photographs of ten-year-old boy depicting him “in various stages of undress and in various anogenital poses, some of which include[d] [defendant’s] hand and fingers,” clearly supported defendant’s convictio
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Although the Mesa detective’s opinion on the truth of the victim’s claim was not admissible at trial, , the trial court was not limited by the rules of evidence in determining the admissibility of the other crime evidence.
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    our supreme court reviewed the admission of expert testimony concerning “behavior patterns of victims of ‘in-home incestuous-type molesting.’ ” The court affirmed the admission of such evidence and concluded: The trial judge has discretion to allow such expert testimony where it may assi
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    E.g., State v. Moran, supra; , State v. Lopez, supra
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    (behavioral evidence cannot tell the jury "who is lying and who is truth-ful____ [We do not permit] expert evidence on the question of guilt or innocence.”).
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    EXPERT TESTIMONY Defendant argues that Dr. Harrison’s P.2d 73 (1986)
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Defense counsel then moved for a
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
    : If those words were not clear enough, we explicitly state at this time that trial courts should not admit direct expert testimony that quantifies the probabilities of the credibility of another witness.
  • State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Lundstrom 776 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
    this court affirmed a defendant’s convictions for six counts of sexual exploitation based upon the simultaneous possession of six photographs.
  • State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Oliver 760 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1988
    aff'd in part, vacated in part, , the trial court refused to admit evidence of Jackie’s prior sexual history.
  • State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
    THE ISSUES On review, the defendant raised two issues: (1) that the trial court erred in ruling that the child victim was unavailable; and (2) that the reception in evidence, without objection, , , was fundamental error.
  • 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. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    Nude and semi-nude photos of a defendant’s former wife, taken prior to the time he committed sexual exploitation of his minor daughter, , aff’d in part, vacated in part on other grounds
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987