Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lujan, 967 P.2d 123.

30 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶23 In support of his position, in which the Arizona Supreme Court reversed Lujan’s conviction for molesting a nine-year-old girl based on the trial court’s preclusion of evidence that she had previously “been molested by at least two other men.” 192 Ariz. at 450, 454, ¶¶ 2-3, 20.
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –54 ¶ 13 (App. 2012); –52 ¶¶ 9–12 (1998).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“When the facts of the case raise questions of credibility or accuracy that might not be explained by experiences common to jurors—like the reactions of child victims of sexual abuse—expert testimony on the general behavioral characteristics of such victims should be admitted.” ¶ 12 (1998).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
Juvenile Action No. JV-121430, , , 451 ¶ 7, (addressing pre-1993, former § 13- *306 1410 and, although citing § 13-1407(E), stating in dicta: “ ‘Knowingly molests’ not only requires that the defendant touch a child’s private parts but that the defendant be motivated by a sexual interest.”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
Juvenile Action No. JV-121430, ¶ 7, (addressing pre-1993, former § 13- 8 STATE V. HOLLE Opinion of the Court 1410 and, although citing § 13-1407(E), stating in dicta: “‘Knowingly molests’ not only r
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. at 594, ¶ 15; ¶ 12 (1998); -74 (1986).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
4 STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court such victims should be admitted.” (“[A]n expert witness may testify about the general characteristics and behavior of sex offenders and victims if the information imparted is not likely to be within the knowledge of most lay persons” so long
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
5, 1993) (describing bill as making “a number of technical and conforming changes”)
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gollihar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P.2d 123 (1998), which predates codification of the rape shield law, to argue that he could have found an expert to testify in support of his theory that the victim’s alleged sexual abuse ten years earlier caused her to misperceive Gollihar locking the door, pushing her onto the bed, straddling her and covering h
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
–52 ¶¶ 9–12, –27 (1998); Lindsey, 149 Ariz. at 473–74, 720 P.2d at 74–75; Moran, 151 Ariz. at 381, 728 P.2d at 251.
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman 306 P.3d 4 Ariz. 2013
See, e.g., State v. Lujan, 192 5 STATE V. COOPERMAN Opinion of the Court Ariz. 448, 451-52 ¶¶ 11-12, -27 (1998) (error to exclude defendant’s evidence of general characteristics of abuse victims to explain inconsistencies in victim’s story); (observing that “[o]pponents of DNA match testimony” may “challenge .
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(defendant can call expert to testify generally about why victim of child molestation may fabricate accusations).
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 20 ¶ 7 , and Maricopa County Juv.
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The person must also “be motivated by a sexual interest.” ¶ 7 , (interpreting A.R.S.