Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Oliver, 760 P.2d 1071.

92 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
is not particularly high.”
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
401; , (observing “standard of relevance is not very high”).
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , (Sixth Amendment right to present evidence limited to relevant evidence); , (proper exclusion of hearsay evidence does not violate due process rights).
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
To determine whether the prior abuse was admissible, the court noted that the rape shield was adopted in Pope because “requiring sex crime victims to defend every incident in their pasts will discourage prosecution” and “introduction of sexual histories might confuse the jury.” Oliver
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(Sixth Amendment right to present evidence is limited to relevant and not unduly prejudicial evidence).
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
A defendant’s fundamental right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is “limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules, including relevance.” , ( , ); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Kiper 887 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Salazar 887 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(approving trial court’s permission of narrow inquiry, through pre-approved leading questions, to establish victim’s independent knowledge of ejaculation from experiences with someone other than accused); Castro, 163 Ariz. at 474 , 788 P.2d at 1225 (remanding for “balanced exclusionary
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
“For Rule 401 purposes, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
"This standard of relevance is not particularly high.” , (citations omitted); , (“It is not necessary that such evidence be sufficient to support a finding of an ultimate fact; it is enough if the evidence, if admitted, would render the desired inference m
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Morales 824 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Morales 824 P.2d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Castro 788 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988