Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Robinson, 796 P.2d 853.

84 citing documents.

State v. Rhone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Rhone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Joe, 234 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16 (admission of prior inconsistent statement was proper to impeach witness who declined to answer questions at trial); –59 (1990) (the State may impeach its own witness).
State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Reuvers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Foster 559 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting risk that evidence against defendant “rubbed off” on co-defendant was minimized by similar jury instruction); cf. Van Winkle, 186 Ariz. at 341 (finding trial court’s error in not severing defendants’ joint trial was not harmless because court
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-59 (1990) (superior court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior superio inconsistent statement when record suggested reasons for witness to be evasive, even though court was uncertain whether witness simply had poor recollection).
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Abbott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Andrus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶18 “The scope of cross-examination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” –58, –60 (1990).
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Joe 316 P.3d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
See id.; (holding that defendant’s presence when victims were tied during home robbery, terrorized with firearms, and then shot was sufficient to demonstrate reckless indifference even though defendant did not actually kill).
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. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
(finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting extrinsic evidence of out-of-court statement under Rule 613(b) when court could not tell if witness was being evasive or merely had poor recollection, but record amply suggested reasons for witness to be evasive).
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
(finding that actions of defendant who “was at least present” when victims’ hands and feet were bound and when the murder occurred met Tison standard).
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
613(b), 801(d)(1); (impeachment of party’s own witness permissible); (prior inconsistent statement by testifying witness not hearsay).
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See King, 180 Ariz. at 275 , 883 P.2d at 1031 (no abuse of discretion in admitting out-of-court statement under Rule 801(d)(1) based on finding that witness was feigning lack of memory at trial); , (no abuse of discretion in admitting extrinsic evidence of out-of-court statement under Rule 613(b) when trial court could not teU if witness was being evasive, or simply could not *320 remember); -76 , -46 (App.1985) (no abuse of di
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
(stating standard of review).
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
Distinguished State v. Rienhardt 951 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996