Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hernandez v. State, 52 P.3d 765.

30 citing documents.

State v. Clemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Clemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Cir. 1989) (holding statements made during plea negotiations are inadmissible under Federal Rule 410 unless waived); ¶ 10 (2002) (“In interpreting Arizona’s evidentiary rules, we look to federal law when our rule is identical to the corresponding federal rule.”).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
403; ¶ 15 (2002) (noting impeachment evidence is subject to exclusion under Rule 403).
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 federa
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
403; ¶ 15 (2002) (impeachment evidence subject to exclusion under Rule 403).
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner 413 P.3d 683 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner 413 P.3d 683 Ariz. 2018
¶ 10 (2002); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford Ariz. 2017
And when “interpreting Arizona’s evidentiary rules, we look to federal law when our rule is identical to the corresponding federal rule.” ¶ 10 (2002).
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
¶20 “In interpreting Arizona’s evidentiary rules, we look to federal law when our rule is identical to the corresponding federal rule[.]” ¶ 10
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Henry, 203 Ariz. at 396, ¶¶ 10-11 , 55 P.3d at 90 ; -200, ¶ 14 , -69 (2002) (“Excluding evidence offered solely to impeach a party’s credibility ...
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 233 P.3d 1133 Ariz. 2010
See, e.g., Readenour, 149 Ariz. at 449-50 , 719 P.2d at 1065-66 ; Hallmark, 132 Ariz. at 439 , 646 P.2d at 324 ; , 197 ¶ 1, 200 ¶ 15, 769 (2002) (holding that Arizona Rule of Evidence 408 does not preclude use of statements in notice of claim "to impeach a party’s credibility,” but admission of impeachment evidence “remains subject to Rules 401, 402 and 403, Ariz. R. Evid.”).
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 18 “When interpreting an evidentiary rule that predominantly echoes its fedei’al countex’part, we often look to the latter for guidance.” , , (“In interpreting Arizona’s evidentially x’ules, we look to federal law when our x’ule is identical to the corresponding federal rule____”).
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
203 Ariz. 196, 199-200 ¶ 14, -69 (2002) (emphasis added).
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 9 , Jones, 187 P.3d at 103 n. 6, ¶ 20.
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Impeaching a party with inconsistent statements is generally allowed, ¶ 13 , but the evidence must still be relevant and probative.