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. Moran, 728 P.2d 248.

140 citing documents.

  • 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
    The Arizona Supreme Court has held that, under Rules 702, 703, and 403 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, expert testimony must “(1) come from a qualified expert, (2) be reliable, (3) aid the trier of fact in evaluating and understanding matters not within their common experience, and (4) have probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect.” -81 , -51 (1986) ( , ).
  • 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
    -81 , -51 (1986) (setting forth requirements for admissibility of expert testimony).
  • 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. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Schroeder 804 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the court stated: We do not consider admission of particularized testimony about credibility a Rule 403 balancing situation.
  • 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. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    (how conduct should be judged in determining whether a child molestation victim is credible as opposed to whether this victim is telling the truth); , (alcoholic character trait as opposed to how that trait influenced the defendant during the crime
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-2248 767 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-2248 767 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    m on appeal, the natural parents summarize their reasons for seeking an independent evaluation as follows: “How would the parents in this action be able to demonstrate their fitness when they were impeded at a crucial juncture from impeaching the major witness against them, their child?” Appellants urge that we deviate from the rule that expert opinion on veracity is inadmissible, , and allow such opinion testimony in the juvenile court.
  • 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. McGowan 746 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. McGowan 746 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds
  • State v. Dawes 753 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Dawes 753 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds, , the defendant argued that his prior convictions could not be used to enhance punishment because they were not shown to have been obtained while he was represented by counsel.
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
    owed expert medical and behavioral testimony to assist in explaining such esoteric topics as the general impact of certain drugs on the average person, , the general reliability of eyewitness identification, Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 297 , 660 P.2d at 1224 ; the fact that many child abuse victims recant their accusations, , and the general characteristics of a victim of battered child syndrome
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
    See Rule 801(d)(1); -76 , -46 (App.1985) (reliability of prior statement can be tested at trial by cross-examining declarant), aff'd in relevant part, rev’d in part
  • Gurule v. Illinois Mutual Life & Casualty Co. 734 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
  • Gurule v. Illinois Mutual Life & Casualty Co. 734 P.2d 85 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Meraz 734 P.2d 73 Ariz. 1987
  • Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987
  • Gorman v. City of Phoenix 731 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1987