Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Allen, 755 P.2d 1153.

37 citing documents.

State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
McGann, 132 Ariz. at 299; (admission of hearsay that is "the only evidence of the details of the crime" constitutes fundamental error).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ordinarily, “if hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it becomes competent evidence admissible for all purposes,” and “absent fundamental error, the failure to object is a waiver of any error.” –71, –59 (1988) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶22 Arizona case law has defined “cumulative evidence” as evidence that “augments or tends to establish a point already proved by other evidence.” (-21, )
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See, (using word “hump[]” to describe defendant rubbing penis against victim’s leg); Downey v. State, 726 N.E.2d 794, 797-98 (Ind.
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶25 Ordinarily, “‘if hearsay evidence is admitted without objection, it becomes competent evidence admissible for all purposes.’”
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572 , 858 P.2d at 1175 ; -72 , -60 (1988).
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State of Arizona v. Sullivan 931 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
See Prince, 160 Ariz. at 274 , 772 P.2d at 1127
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Fundamental error is error that “goes to the foundation of the case or takes from a defendant a right essential to Ms defense.”
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
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 statements were relatively consistent, but as Robinson and a later decision which discussed Robinson, , point out, consistency is not a guarantee of trustworthiness.
State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
(where hearsay evidence is erroneously admitted without objection and constitutes the only competent evidence of the crime, the admission is constitutional, fundamental error).