Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile No. JV95000239, 933 P.2d 1187.

15 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Chris Thomas Gomez 482 P.3d 397 Ariz. 2021
¶27 The court of appeals acknowledged that this Court “has suggested that statistical evidence is not always necessary in quantifying DNA results.” Gomez, 2019 WL 3761642, at *5 ¶ 24 ( for the proposition that expert DNA testimony may be supported by personal experience).
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
702; (explaining that an expert’s opinion and the extent of their knowledge is “fair game during cross-examination”); ¶ 21 (App. 2003) (“Arizona has a long-favored practice of allowing full cross-examination of expert witnesses, including inquiry about the expert’s sources
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“Thus,” the court concluded, “we retain the Frye rule but continue to apply it as described in [State v.] Hummert[, P.2d 1187 (1997)].
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(trial court may properly preclude under Rule 403 “marginally relevant” evidence that different suspect may have committed offense).
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
403; (affirming preclusion of defendant’s arguably relevant evidence that another person committed similar signature crime on ground that probative value was outweighed by “danger of confusing and misleading the jury”).
Lohmeier v. Hammer 148 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
at 480, ¶ 30, 1 P.3d at 123 ( , ).
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
While questioning an expert’s qualifications is proper to assist the jury in assessing the expert’s credibility, State v. Hummert, 188 Ariz. 119, 126, Ethical Rule 3.4(e) requires that the questioning have some factual basis.
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
124-25, , 1192-93 (1997).
State v. Garcia 3 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Second, the profiles are analyzed to determine whether any of the samples match____ Finally, the significance of the match is articulated, usually by calculating the probability of a random match.” , ( , ).
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
for ascertaining and declaring a match”); , (noting that RFLP principles are generally accepted and valid); , (recognizing this Court’s acceptance of DNA evidence using RFLP methodology); , (acknowledging that Arizona has held RFLP to be generally accepted in the scientific community).
State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
see also Yee 6 ; ; People v. Axell, 235 Cal.App.3d 836 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 (App.1991); United States v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629 (D.C.
State v. Tankersley 956 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1998
¶ 6 PCR differs significantly from restriction fragment length polymorphis (RFLP), , 577 & n. 17, , 1180 & n. 17 (1993), -32 , -1200 (1997); -24 , -92 (1997)
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam 949 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“It is well established in Arizona that the basis for an expert’s opinion is fair game during cross-examination.”
State v. Boles 933 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1997