Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hill, 848 P.2d 1375.

159 citing documents.

Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl 416 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See State v. Hill , , 323, , 1385 (1993) ("A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law."); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Preciado v. Young America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”).
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(citations omitted); -21 (1975) (finding trial judge did not abuse discretion by refusing to strike for cause a highway patrolman who knew the prosecutor by sight).
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Although a witness’s credibility is always relevant, ‘[i]t is well settled that when impeaching a witness regarding an inconsistent fact collateral to the trial issues, the impeaching party is bound by the witness’ answer and cannot produce extrinsic evidence to contradict the witness.’” ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (alteration in original) ().
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurrieri Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶39 Prosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument, but “[j]ury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is [] improper.” Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 86, ¶ 59.
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McDowell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶35 Although prosecutors have wide latitude in closing argument, “[j]ury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is [] improper.” ¶ 59 (1998)
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-20 (1993) ( -21 (1975)).
Longariello v. Aura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Longariello v. Aura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”).
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hill, (“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”) (citation omitted).
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
State v. Ortloff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ortloff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez 323 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although a witness’s credibility is always relevant, “[i]t is well settled that when impeaching a witness regarding an inconsistent fact collateral to the trial issues, the impeaching party is bound by the witness’ answer and cannot produce extrinsic evidence to contradict the witness.”
Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/state 323 P.3d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Additional Matters ¶11 First, in closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “I’ll flat out tell you, the Defendant is a liar.” Although counsel is given wide latitude in closing arguments, (citations omitted), he must not convey personal belief about the credibility of a witness.
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
(“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”).
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Counsel may “comment on the evidence and argue all reasonable inferences therefrom.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
n.4, n.4 (1993) (noting instruction warranted “when the state fails to preserve evidence important to the case”).
In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of Long 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
[16] , (citation omitted).
Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Long v. Olen 276 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by