Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Britt v. State, 218 P. 981.
- State v. Fierro 496 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Fierro 496 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
-
State v. Moore
495 P.2d 445
Ariz. 1972
Counsel, however, must not expect the court to affirm judgments secured by tactics that are unlawful and unfair.” 427 , 218 P. 981, 983, 984 (1923).
- State v. Enriquez 430 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1967
-
State v. Enriquez
430 P.2d 422
Ariz. 1967
If- the questions were per *405 sistent enough and cleverly enough framed, no amount of denial on the part of a defendant would be able to erase the impression in the mind of the jury that the prosecutor actually had such facts at hand and that probably there was some truth to the insinuations.” * * * * * * “ , ; , 218 P. 981 ; , ; , 201 P. 398 ; and State v. Byrd, [ , ] supra; our court has laid down the rule that no prosecuting officer, in order to impeach a witness, can engage in such questio
- Stewart v. Smith 237 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1951
-
Stewart v. Smith
237 P.2d 803
Ariz. 1951
* * * ” , 218 P. 981 ; , 201 P. 102 .
- State v. Singleton 182 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1947
-
State v. Singleton
182 P.2d 920
Ariz. 1947
218 P. 981 ; , ; , 201 P. 398 ; and State v. Byre, supra; our court has laid down the rule that no prosecuting officer, in order to impeach a witness, can engage in such questioning without being *66 prepared and able to prove the insinuations.
- State of Arizona v. Guldin 162 P.2d 907 Ariz. 1945
-
State of Arizona v. Guldin
162 P.2d 907
Ariz. 1945
Furthermore, I think the cross-examination of the witness Lundgren without any attempt, and obviously without any hope, of being able to impeach the witness, was reversible error, , 218 Pac.
- State of Arizona v. Titus 152 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1944
-
State of Arizona v. Titus
152 P.2d 129
Ariz. 1944
...” , 218 P. 981, 983 , wherein the prosecuting attorney in his argument stated: “ ‘I know the defendant is a bootlegger; the defendant knows he is a bootlegger, and defendant’s counsel knows that I know that the defendant is a bootlegger.’ ...” The court in the Britt case reversed the judgment, but as to the particular l
- State of Arizona v. Guerrero 120 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1942
- State of Arizona v. Guerrero 120 P.2d 798 Ariz. 1942
- Burgunder v. State of Arizona 103 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1940
- Burgunder v. State of Arizona 103 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1940
- Hash v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1936
- Hash v. State of Arizona 59 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1936
- Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Sullivan v. State of Arizona 55 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1936
- Post v. State 15 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1932
- Rutledge v. State 15 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1932
- Rutledge v. State 15 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1932
- Post v. State 15 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1932
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Strickland v. State 294 P. 617 Ariz. 1930
- Allen v. State 225 P. 332 Ariz. 1924
- Allen v. State 225 P. 332 Ariz. 1924