Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Green, 29 P.3d 271.

65 citing documents.

State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
STATE v. COWAN Decision of the Court 498, ¶ 7 (2001).
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Arias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 21 (2001) (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Lashway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lashway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (2001) (explaining that convictions older than ten years should be admitted into evidence “very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances”).1 Lashway also asserts the court’s ruling prevented her from asserting B.C.
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
was surely unattributable to the error.” ¶ 21 (2001) ().
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 10 (2001) ("When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its federal counterpart, we often look to the latter for guidance.").
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Rose 441 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Cf. Hernandez v. State , , ¶ 10, , 767 (2002) ("In interpreting Arizona's evidentiary rules, we look to federal law when our rule is identical to the corresponding federal rule"); but see State v. Green , , ¶ 10, , 273-274 (2001) ("When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its federal counterpart, we often look to the latter for guidance.").
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Riley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 21 (2001) (“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it ‘did not contribute to or affect the verdict.’”) ().
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Prior convictions that occurred over 10 years before trial are admissible under Rule 609(b) “very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” -01, ¶ 20 (2001).
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
" State v. Green , , ¶ 20, quoting S. Rep.
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
–93 ¶ 7 (2014); ¶ 10 (2001).
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“When reviewing a ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions, this court will overturn the trial court’s determination only if it proves to have been a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 21, (internal quotation and citation omitted).
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pistole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pistole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lieder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lieder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 66 (2003) (sanitization); ¶ 7 (2001) (admissibility of prior convictions).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it ‘did not contribute to or affect the verdict.’” ¶ 21, ( ).
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 22 (2001) (considering the nature and extent of questions from the jury in determining whether certain information affected its decision); -40 (1978) (affirming denial of a motion for mistrial where the prosecutor briefly referred to unproven prior bad acts in the opening stat
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it ‘did not contribute to or affect the verdict.’” ¶ 21, ( ).
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 7, Williams, 144 Ariz. at 439, 698 P.2d at 684.
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
¶ 10, (“When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its federal counterpart, we often look to the latter for guidance.”) (citation omitted); Ariz. R. Evid., prefatory cmt.
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
v. Klein, (when interpreting evidentiary rule with federal counterpart we may look to federal rule for guidance).
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” ¶21 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We “„will not reverse a conviction if an error is clearly 8 harmless.‟”