Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Vincent, 768 P.2d 150.

98 citing documents.

State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Vouching has two forms: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its [evidence] [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the [evidence].” Newell, 212 Ariz. at ¶ 62, ().
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ury that the detective’s review of the recording before testifying was just her “doing a good job” to ensure she testified “accurately.” Impermissible prosecutorial vouching occurs “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [or] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” ().
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶16 Prosecutorial vouching is a form of misconduct in which the “prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony,” or the prosecutor asserts personal knowledge of facts in issue.
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
Newell, 212 Ariz. at 402 ¶ 62, 132 P.3d at 846
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State V, Criswell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(impermissible prosecutorial vouching occurs “where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness”).
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13– 4253, but only after the trial court makes “an individualized showing of necessity,” (relying on Coy, 487 U.S. at 1021, and Vess, 157 Ariz. at 238, 756 P.2d at 335).
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clifton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶16 Impermissible prosecutorial vouching occurs when “the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness[es]” or “the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
(holding that a prosecutor commits improper vouching by placing the prestige of the government behind a witness).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne 306 P.3d 17 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
utor places the prestige of the government behind its [evidence] [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that 13 information not presented to the jury supports the [evidence].’” ¶ 62, ( ) (alterations in Newell).
State of Arizona v. Eddie Brian Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Eddie Brian Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-33, -65 (1989); ¶¶ 24-25
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
witness was called.” Prosecutorial vouching takes two forms: “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its [evidence] [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the [evidence].”
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Miller v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Vouching Prosecutorial vouching occurs either “(1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
There are “two forms of impermissible prosecutorial vouching: (1) where the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness; [and] (2) where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the *277 jury supports the witness’s testimony.”
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor “places the prestige of the government behind its witness.”
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
2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988)
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
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
which leaves undecided whether a showing that face-to-face testimony would likely be traumatic, but not so disabling as to render a child unable to reasonably communicate, would overcome a criminal defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses.
State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
(addressing statutory construction to guide trial court upon remand).
State v. Wilhite 772 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Wilhite 772 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(1989), the Arizona Supreme Court examined the witness-shielding procedures of A.R.S.