9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Saundersgreen2 sentences1969E. g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149, 156-157 , 125 A.2d 442, 445-446 (1956).” 91 Ariz. at 278 , 371 P.2d at 897 . 1969E. g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149, 156-157 , 125 A.2d 442, 445-446 (1956).” 91 Ariz. at 278 , 371 P.2d at 897 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences1979THE LIE DETECTOR EVIDENCE Following the procedure set forth in State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894 (1962), the state, Pasillas and Pasillas’ attorney entered into a written stipulation providing for Pasillas’ submission to a lie detector test and the subsequent admission at trial of the test results. 1979THE LIE DETECTOR EVIDENCE Following the procedure set forth in State v. Valdez, 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894 (1962), the state, Pasillas and Pasillas’ attorney entered into a written stipulation providing for Pasillas’ submission to a lie detector test and the subsequent admission at trial of the test results. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2016He argues the court’s curative instruction was insufficient to cure what Appellant implies was prosecutorial misconduct. ¶25 This court will reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct when there is misconduct by the prosecutor and “a reasonable likelihood . . . that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.” State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 340, ¶ 45 , 111 P.3d 369, 382 (2005). 2016He argues the court’s curative instruction was insufficient to cure what Appellant implies was prosecutorial misconduct. ¶25 This court will reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct when there is misconduct by the prosecutor and “a reasonable likelihood . . . that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.” State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 340, ¶ 45 , 111 P.3d 369, 382 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Goldsmith
green
2 sentences1981As the Court of Appeals observed in its order, “it is well-settled in this jurisdiction that lie detector evidence is admissible only by stipulation, State v. Goldsmith, 112 Ariz. 399 , 542 P.2d 1098 (1975), and evidence of a defendant’s willingness to take a lie detector test is not admissible. 1981As the Court of Appeals observed in its order, “it is well-settled in this jurisdiction that lie detector evidence is admissible only by stipulation, State v. Goldsmith, 112 Ariz. 399 , 542 P.2d 1098 (1975), and evidence of a defendant’s willingness to take a lie detector test is not admissible. | 2 | 1977–1981 |
State v. Bible
green
2 sentences2008Local newspapers reported several pieces of inadmissible evidence, including that Bible had “flunked a lie detector test,” and false reports, such as that Bible was a convicted “child molester” who had committed “child rape.” Id. at 564 , 858 P.2d at 1167 . 2008Local newspapers reported several pieces of inadmissible evidence, including that Bible had “flunked a lie detector test,” and false reports, such as that Bible was a convicted “child molester” who had committed “child rape.” Id. at 564 , 858 P.2d at 1167 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Forgan
green
2 sentences1981State v. Forgan, 104 Ariz. 497 , 455 P.2d 975 (1969).” We agree with the Court of Appeals that appellant’s offers to take a polygraph test, clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in appellant’s taped confession, part of which was introduced at his trial. 1981State v. Forgan, 104 Ariz. 497 , 455 P.2d 975 (1969).” We agree with the Court of Appeals that appellant’s offers to take a polygraph test, clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in appellant’s taped confession, part of which was introduced at his trial. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Dorsey
green
2 sentences1977I concur in the result because I am constrained to do so by virtue of State v. Valdez, supra. I do believe, however, that the time has come for our Supreme Court to re-examine its ruling in Valdez as was done by the New Mexico court in the case of State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975) 1 and hold that the results of a lie detector test may be admitted into evidence without the necessity of a stipulation by the parties. 1977I concur in the result because I am constrained to do so by virtue of State v. Valdez, supra. I do believe, however, that the time has come for our Supreme Court to re-examine its ruling in Valdez as was done by the New Mexico court in the case of State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184 , 539 P.2d 204 (1975) 1 and hold that the results of a lie detector test may be admitted into evidence without the necessity of a stipulation by the parties. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. McGee
green
2 sentences1975This case is ultimately controlled by State v. McGee, 91 Ariz. 101 , 370 P.2d 261 (1962), wherein the Arizona Supreme Court held that a refusal to permit inspection of the lie detector test was proper since the result was not and could not be evidence in itself. 1975This case is ultimately controlled by State v. McGee, 91 Ariz. 101 , 370 P.2d 261 (1962), wherein the Arizona Supreme Court held that a refusal to permit inspection of the lie detector test was proper since the result was not and could not be evidence in itself. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Carter
green
2 sentences1962In Carter the California Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in not striking all of the testimony of a witness who stated that he had been willing to take a lie-detector test but that “ ‘ * * * some other people wouldn’t take [such a test] * * * ’.” The reviewing court held that “ * * * the implication survived that defendant had refused to take a lie detector test and that his refusal furnished some evidence of guilty knowledge.” 48 Cal.2d at 752 , 312 P.2d at 674 . 7 . 1962In Carter the California Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in not striking all of the testimony of a witness who stated that he had been willing to take a lie-detector test but that “ ‘ * * * some other people wouldn’t take [such a test] * * * ’.” The reviewing court held that “ * * * the implication survived that defendant had refused to take a lie detector test and that his refusal furnished some evidence of guilty knowledge.” 48 Cal.2d at 752 , 312 P.2d at 674 . 7 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Henderson v. State
green
1 sentence1962The case is annotated at 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 (1952). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.