Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Luzanilla, 880 P.2d 611.

32 citing documents.

State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
As a result, the exception applies “only in rare and exceptional circumstances.”
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Grier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
enerally, “demonstrative evidence is relevant if it illustrates or explains testimony and will be admitted if its probative value outweighs 9 STATE v. GRIER Decision of the Court the danger of unfair prejudice.” vacated in part on other grounds, see also 1 McCormick on Evid.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 In State v. Luzanilla, our Supreme Court explained the legislative history behind the “residual hearsay exception,” and indicated that it was to be used “only in rare and exceptional circumstances.”
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Scott Allen King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In general, “demonstrative evidence is relevant if it illustrates or explains testimony and will be admitted if its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.” vacated in part on other grounds by P.2d 2 It is unclear from King‟s brief whether he is arguing Rule 901, Ariz. R. Evid., applies to both the videotape and the in-court demonstration, or just to the in-court demonstration; in our discretion we consider both, because he raised the objection to both in the trial court.
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
¶61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 (1990)).
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
aff'd in relevant part, vacated in part on other grounds, , (“[R]etrial following a hung jury is simply a continuation of a single prosecution].]”); Jose, 425 F.3d at 1242-44 (explaining that having “same offense” charges brought in one indictment “makes all the difference” because jeopardy may “continue” on one count even when there has been a terminatin
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
B. Other Indicia of Reliability ¶ 23 Even if a hearsay statement does not fall into a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it can still be admitted without violation of the Confrontation Clause if it is “at least as rehable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” -94 , -14 (1994) (citation omitted).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
221, 224 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199, 205 (1957); , , affirmed in relevant part, vacated in part on other grounds, , (“[R]etrial following a hung jury is simply a continuation of a single prosecution....”).
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
State v. Detrich 932 P.2d 1328 Ariz. 1997
(holding that a fact determination necessarily decided in a partial verdict is barred by collateral estoppel in the retrial of the remaining charges), affirmed in part, vacated in part
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Thus, a statement proffered pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5) must have “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” that the statement is “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” , cert.
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); -94 , -14 (1994).
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.’ ” , cert.
Andrade v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Andrade v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-03 , -88 (App.1993), aff'd in part, vacated in part, , (approving of disposition of double jeopardy/collateral estoppel issue in opinion from court of appeals), cert.