Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rivera, 109 P.3d 83.

25 citing documents.

State v. Gordillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 11 (2005) (citation omitted); see also id.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
¶¶ 2, 11, 18 (2005) (former codefendants may truthfully testify for state as part of plea arrangement).
Landwehr v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Landwehr v. Landwehr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 25-408(G) (burden on party seeking relocation); ¶ 11 (2005) (noting that “cross- examination is the appropriate tool for probing the truthfulness of a witness’s statements”).
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
avages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1998) (agreeing that perjury warnings “are not improper per se”); –02, ¶ 21 (2000) (finding that the prosecutor did not threaten a defense witness when he did not contact the witness or his attorney directly and did not say he would pursue perjury charges regardless of how the witness testified); ¶ 17 (2005) (acknowledging that “[a]ll accomplice plea agreements put some pressure on a cooperating witness”).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
As arms of the State, prosecutors must not only disclose exculpatory evidence, they may not knowingly elicit false testimony, ¶ 11 (2005), or use the prestige of the government to improperly vouch for the credibility of the State’s witnesses, ¶ 24 (1998) ().
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Smith 393 P.3d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
she divulged that information to the forensic interviewer as evidence “that N.S.’s ‘accusations’ actually stemmed from her parents’ suggestive questioning.” However, “inconsistencies in witness testimony go not to the admissibility of testimony, but rather to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence, which are issues for the jury to resolve.”
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[I]nconsistencies in witness testimony go not to the admissibility of testimony, but rather to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence, which are issues for the jury to resolve.” ¶ 20
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
It is well settled, however, that “[a]bsent a showing that the prosecution was aware of any false testimony, the credibility of witnesses is for the jury to determine.“ ¶ 28
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
194, ¶¶ 11, 28, 89 (2005) (“Absent a showing that the prosecution was aware of any false testimony, the credibility of witnesses is for the jury to determine.”); ¶ 46, (noting that a person is convicted only if a jury finds th
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua 326 P.3d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua 326 P.3d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 13 , our supreme court *58 clarified that a plea-agreement term avowing that a previous statement was true did not violate due process when the agreement also required truthful testimony.
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (stating that while prosecutors may not knowingly allow witnesses to falsely testify, “cross-examination is the appropriate tool for probing the truthfulness of a witness’s statements”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by