Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241.

127 citing documents.

State v. Thomas 194 P.3d 394 Ariz. 2008
“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to determine the legislature’s intent because its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute.” ¶ 6
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
lists six types of offenses that can be alleged as historical prior felony convictions no matter when they occurred.” -67, ¶ 7 , -44 (2003).
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
¶ 6, (interpreting statutory provision); Moody, 208 Ariz. at 445, ¶ 62, 94 P.3d at 1140 (interpreting constitutional provision).
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Romley v. Hauser, 209 Ariz. - 4 - 539, 541, ¶ 10, ( ¶ 6, ).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Laws, ch. 255, § 12; n.11, n.11 (2003).
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Magee v. Magee 81 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Magee v. Magee 81 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
kramstad was correctly decided on its 9 B. ¶13 The State also argues that any interpretation of Rule 609(a)(1) as excluding the use of Proposition 200 convictions for impeachment purposes is foreclosed by our recent decision in State v. Christian, ___ Ariz. ___

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by