Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moran, 728 P.2d 248.

140 citing documents.

State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P.2d 248 (1986), P.2d 1240 (App. 1985), is misplaced.
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
¶14 –83, –53 (1986), from opining on the veracity of the children’s accusations or addressing hypothetical situations aligned with the facts of this case, her testimony did not “fit” the facts of this case, making it “unhelpful.” See Rule 702(a).
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
United States v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985, 995 (5th Cir. 2010) (stating that an expert may analyze the facts but may not offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue in the case “by offering a direct opinion as to the defendant’s mental state or by giving the ‘functional equivalent’ of such a statement”); -82, 386, -52, 256 (1986) (stating that expert testimony regarding the general behavioral characteristics of child abuse victims is admissible, but testimony that a victim’s behavior is consistent w
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(amendment “not intended to supplant traditional jury determinations of credibility” or “preclude the testimony of experience-based experts”); 13 (permitting generalized expert testimony about behavioral characteristics of sex-abuse victims); -75, -76 (1986) (generalized expert testimony about behavioral patterns common among child
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-74, -75 (1986); -82, -52 (1986).
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 284 P.3d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
(expert witness); -41, -14 (App. 1997) (lay witness).
State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony that "the victim’s behavior was consistent with the abuse having occurred”); -54 , -89 (App.1995) (holding that evidence on "child molester profi
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
ce of out-of-court statement under Rule 613(b) when trial court could not teU if witness was being evasive, or simply could not *320 remember); -76 , -46 (App.1985) (no abuse of discretion in admitting tape recording of out-of-court statement under Rule 801(d)(1) after victim-witness recanted sexual abuse allegations at trial), aff'd in part
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The Lindsey court "recognized that expert testimony on recantation and other problems afflicting sexual abuse victims may explain a victim's seemingly inconsistent behavior and aid jurors in evaluating the victim's credibility.” , (interpreting Lindsey ).
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
at 473-74, 720 P.2d at 74-75 (citations omitted)
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Reimer 941 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Reimer 941 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Although the defendant did not object to this testimony, he argues on appeal that it constituted “advice to the jury on how to decide the case.”
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
approved in part, vacated in part on other grounds
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
NOTES [1] , (in prior statement daughter stated that her father sexually abused her; at trial daughter recanted her accusations); , (in prior statement witness said defendant pointed a gun at her and tried to shoot her; at trial witness testified that defendan
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
Trial courts have broad discretion in admitting expert testimony, , “[h]owever, when the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is a question of ‘law or logic,’ it is this court’s responsibility to determine admissibility.”