Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tankersley, 956 P.2d 486.

44 citing documents.

State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To be admissible as a statement against interest, the hearsay statement must “‘tend’ to subject the declarant to criminal liability.” ¶ 46 (1998) (quoting LaGrand, 153 Ariz. at 27) (holding that a person’s letter suggesting that he had committed a homicide, was against his interest but was not admissible because no other evidence linked him to the murder and therefore was not corroborated), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Machado, 226 A
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Although the details need not be identical, there must be similarities between important aspects where one would normally expect to find difference.” ¶ 17 (2011).
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(reliability of particular result based on implementation, rather than reliability of technique itself, is “foundational consideration ] governed by ordinary evidentiary standards”)
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶30 ¶¶ 39, 43, 497 (1998), our supreme court affirmed the trial court‟s preclusion of third-party other-act evidence, based in part on Rule 404(b).
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Connor, 215 Ariz. at 563, ¶¶ 32-33 , 161 P.3d at 606 (prior burglary of victim’s home to show victim’s state of mind in relationship with defendant not true other-act evidence, but analyzed under Rule 404(b)); ¶ 39 , (rule applicable to acts of third parties).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Steven James King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Tankersley 121 P.3d 829 Ariz. 2005
State v. Tankersley 121 P.3d 829 Ariz. 2005
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
-65, ¶ 14 , -92 (1998) (new application of scientific principle is subject to Frye).
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
State v. Ring 25 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2001
369 ¶ 37, , 496 ¶ 37 (1998).
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Cordova 8 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Fields 2 P.3d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
(alcohol may have caused some impairment, but not enough to meet the (G)(1) mitigator); Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. at 591-92 , 951 P.2d at 466-67 (no evidence offered that could establish the level of intoxication); , (mental hea
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
STATE of Arizona, Respondent.