Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hughes, 938 P.2d 457.
- State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
- State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
-
State v. Prion
52 P.3d 189
Ariz. 2002
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 593
- State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
State v. Arner
988 P.2d 1120
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
at 92 , 887 P.2d at 622 ; , (It is “incumbent on the trial court, under Rule 403, to limit [other acts] evidence to its probative essence ...
- State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
-
State v. Mills
995 P.2d 705
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
He also asserts the prior act was used for the impermissible purpose to show he “acted in conformity with his prior actions when he was involved in her murder.” ¶26
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Rodriguez 961 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
- State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998