DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bass, 12 P.3d 796.

121 citing documents.

  • State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 15 In State v. Jansing, we reached the same result in a fact situation that differed only because “the victim of defendant’s aggravated assault was a passenger in her own car,” and she, therefore, “knew that he was present and under fifteen.” , ¶ 13
  • State v. Garnica 98 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Garnica 98 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
  • Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
    ¶ 32, - 14 - (calling trustworthiness the “cornerstone” of the hearsay exceptions).
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Huerstel 75 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2003
    ¶ 35, (“[T]he hearsay rule and confrontation clauses are not duplicates.
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    -76, ¶¶ 11-14 , -01 (2000).
  • 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
    to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Confrontation *325 Clause “ensure[s] that testimony of an out-of-court declarant may be given only where it is invested with ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” ¶ 35 , (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct.
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Gilbert; , (due process violation based on preindictment delay requires tactical ploy or harassment and substantial prejudice to the defense), overruled on other grounds
  • Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
  • Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ¶ 13 , (overruling Jansing and other eases to the extent that they differentiate between “coincidental” and “responsive” intervening acts).