DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lundstrom, 776 P.2d 1067.

72 citing documents.

  • State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
    See, , rev’d on other grounds, , (defendant’s response that he “can’t talk now” did not invoke his right to remain silent when, after being given period of time to collect himself and again being read his rights, he chose to answer questions).
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Clark 887 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Portillo 876 P.2d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    1199 , 117 L.Ed.2d 439 (1992); , 150 n. 11, , 1076 n. 11 (1989)
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
    “Error is harmless or non-prejudicial when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.”
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    "if the testifying expert merely acts as a conduit for another non-testifying expert’s opinion, the ‘expert opinion’ is hearsay and is inadmissible, Rule 703 notwithstanding.” .
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
    801(d)(2)(A), cumulative evidence, or harmless error, , (error harmless when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict).
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
    rev’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Zimmerman 802 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    vacated on other grounds, , defendant declared, “[I] can’t talk now,” and started sobbing.
  • 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
    the Arizona Supreme Court held that under Rule 703, Arizona Rules of Evidence, an expert witness could use a non-testifying expert’s opinion to buttress his own if the other opinion was a basis for his own opinion.
  • Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Lopez v. Industrial Commission 785 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    our supreme court examined Rule 703 and stated: [A]n expert witness on direct examination may disclose facts or data that have not been admitted in evidence — and that may not be admissible — if they form the basis for his opinion and if of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.