Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 801.

201 citing documents.

State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
affirmed as modified, , this court considered whether a trial court acted improperly when it sentenced a defendant to consecutive terms and imposed an excessive sentence.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
b. Confrontation Clause “The confrontation clauses of the state and federal constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to confront *276 their accusers.” , see Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 24; U.S. Const, amend.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins., , , ( , ).
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1 The Supreme Court of Arizona has the “exclusive constitutional authority ‘to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.’ Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(5)____”
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rushton 837 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Rushton 837 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(certified psychologist treating child for psychological problems stemming from sexual abuse was treating the child for “medical” purposes within meaning of exception to hearsay rule); Matter of Juvenile Dep.
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the supreme court stated that “the ‘crucial question under the rule’ is whether the declarant’s out-of-court statements were ‘reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.’ ” Id.
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Filler 818 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
197 n. 6, , 807 n. 6 (1987), our supreme court stated: 6.
State v. Irving 797 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Irving 797 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Collins v. Seidel, 142 Ariz. at 591 , 691 P.2d at 682 )
State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
United States v. Nick, 604 F.2d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir.1979); , Jeffers, supra.
State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lindeken 799 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Tucker 798 P.2d 1349 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the supreme court held that it was not error to admit prior statements that a child had made to other people because they were permitted under Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5), Arizona Rules of Evidence, the catchall exception for hearsay which permits the admission of testimony which has reliable ci
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Dependency Action No. 96290 785 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Dependency Action No. 96290 785 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
and the statements in question were admissible under Ariz.R.Evid.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7499 786 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7499 786 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
He correctly points out that the record in the instant case presents a
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vincent 768 P.2d 150 Ariz. 1989
2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), , and in two recent decisions of the Maryland courts.
State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
State v. Allen 755 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
State v. Charo 754 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1988
State v. Vess 756 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Vess 756 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
concerning confrontation: “The rule remains that whenever possible, eye-to-eye, face-to-face, jury-to-witness confrontation is required.” That the ability to assess demeanor was a part of the confrontation right was recognized in Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 , 15 S.Ct.
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.” , -07 (1987), the supreme court stated: The legislature’s authority to modify the rule against hearsay, see Rule 802, or the exceptions contained in Rules 803 and 804, is limited by two important, related principles.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987