Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lane, 211 P.2d 821.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-44, (“Whatever investigation the sheriff made as an agent of the state was made for the benefit of the county attorney as an agent of the state in enabling him to successfully prosecute the offender .
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
(citation omitted) * * * ” , -25 (1949).
State v. Allen 571 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1977
State v. Allen 571 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1977
State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. LaBarre 565 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The case upon which appellant places principal reliance, and which embodies these principles
State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Ramirez 563 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
-25 (1949), that “The right to cross-examine a witness when he testifies to something which takes the party calling him by surprise may exist when the right to impeach such witness clearly would be denied.
State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
State v. Lewis 523 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1974
State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
State v. Skinner 515 P.2d 880 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Crank 480 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Crank 480 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
re *592 quires reversal when prior inconsistent statements of a witness are introduced.
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
State v. Michael 436 P.2d 595 Ariz. 1968
State v. Palmer 424 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Palmer 424 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
we would, however, hold that the defendant and his attorney, having signed the stipulation following the addendum *192 which agreed to the filing of the amended information, could not now complain.
Anderson v. CITY VAN & STORAGE COMPANY 340 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1959
Anderson v. CITY VAN & STORAGE COMPANY 340 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1959
it was clearly error to refuse to permit counsel for plaintiff to cross-examine the witness Homer Oyler after he declared surprise at the testimony of Oyler, apparently entirely different from that given in a deposition shortly after the fire occurred.
State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
State v. Thomas 290 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1955
State v. Lane 233 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1951
State v. Lane 233 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1951
This appeal comes here from a , , which this court reversed because of prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony.