Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 159 P.3d 531.

115 citing documents.

State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Joseph, 230 Ariz. at 298, ¶ 8; -29, ¶¶ 23- 26 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Arthur Cornell Wright 370 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Arthur Cornell Wright 370 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
801(c) (defining hearsay); (police report inadmissible unless hearsay exception applies).
State v. Suggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Suggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bravo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. (Joe C.) Smith, ¶ 42
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 20, but “review de novo whether the admission of evidence violates the Confrontation Clause,” ¶ 7
E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Joseph, 230 Ariz. at 298 ¶ 8, 283 P.3d at 29; ¶ 26, ¶ 62
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gomez, 226 Ariz. at 169, ¶ 22, 244 P.3d at 1167; ¶ 23, (finding no constitutional deficiency when expert, in forming independent conclusions, reasonably relies on information obtained from others not testifying at trial); Ariz. R. Evid.
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
¶ 67, (deciding that weight of defendant’s mental health evidence was diminished by evidence the defendant “likely knew what he was doing and that it was wrong”).
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Steven John Parker 296 P.3d 54 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
¶ 20, 1 ¶19 “Arizona’s death penalty scheme [is] designed to narrow, in a constitutional manner, the class of first degree murderers who are death-eligible,” and prosecutors may seek the death penalty only in the limited cases that qualify under t
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
"Because this issue concerns a question of law, our review is de novo.” ¶ 14
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Gomez 244 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gomez 244 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2010
al examiner may offer an expert opinion based on review of reports and test results prepared by others, as long as the testifying expert does not simply “act as a conduit for another non- testifying expert’s opinion.” ¶ 19, (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 23, ).
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
if the expert reasonably 8 relied on these matters in reaching his own conclusion.” ¶ 23
McClung v. Bennett 235 P.3d 1037 Ariz. 2010
McClung v. Bennett 235 P.3d 1037 Ariz. 2010
¶ 55, (noting “the deference given [to] prejudice assessments” in making a due process determination).
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
212 Ariz. at 435 ¶ 33, 133 P.3d at 745; ¶ 42, (“[T]he same is true of voir dire focused on the assessment of specific aggravators.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by