Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prasertphong, 114 P.3d 828.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Victor A. Arias Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona 532 P.3d 327 Ariz. 2023
t 684, 687, 691 (concluding exclusion of testimony about the physical and psychological environment that yielded defendant’s confession deprived him of “his fundamental constitutional right to a fair opportunity to present a defense” where defendant argued “there was no physical evidence to link him to the crime” and “his earlier admission of guilt was not to be believed”); ¶¶ 22–23 (2005) (concluding that trial court’s decision to admit remaining portions of co- defendant’s statement under rule
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 26 (2005) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973)).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State v. Prasertphong (Prasertphong II), –01 ¶¶ 20–21 (2005).
State v. Pina-Barajas 418 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Pina-Barajas 418 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Cruz , , ¶ 58, , 209 (2008), quoting State v. Prasertphong , , ¶ 15, , 831 (2005).
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
¶9 In ruling that Rule 106 supports excluding the excerpt from Ponce’s video, the court of appeals reasoned that “the deleted portion of the video is ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced.’” 237 Ariz. at 534 ¶ 12, 354 P.3d at 411 ( ¶ 15, ).
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
¶ 9 In ruling that Rule 106 supports excluding the excerpt from Ponce’s video, the court of appeals reasoned that “the deleted portion of the video is ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced.’ ” 237 Ariz. at 534 ¶ 12, 354 P.3d at 411 ( , 499 ¶ 15, ).
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[O]nly the portion of a statement ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced’ need be admitted.” ¶ 58 (2008) ( ¶ 15 (2005)).
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Yashar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Our supreme court has explained that Rule 106 “requires the admission of those portions of the statement that are necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced.” ¶ 15 (2005) (internal quotation and marks omitted).
State v. Steinle 354 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Steinle 354 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 15 , (noting the rule requires only admission of portions of a statement “necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced”) (internal citations omitted); ¶ 58
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
e the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” 3 STATE v. CRAVETS Decision of the Court ¶5 Rule 106 “is a partial codification of the rule of completeness.” ¶ 14
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
recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” But the rule does not necessarily require the admission of the entire account; instead “only the portion of a statement ‘necessary to qualify, explain or place into context the portion already introduced’ need be admitted.”
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 24 , (stating that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds” (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶ 15, (quoting United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 728 (5th Cir. 1996)).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Prasertphong (Prasertphong II), -500 ¶¶ 13-17, -32 (2005) ( (determining that “once [Soto-Fong] made the tactical decision to introduce some of [the informant’s] testimony about [the conversation with the two alleged accomplices], he could not simulta