8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dessureaultgreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeaugreen2 sentences2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. 2016See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); State v. Williams, 144 Ariz. 433, 440 (1985) (reciting the Biggers factors as those to “be examined in determining reliability” of a suggestive identification); State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 454, ¶ 132 (2016) (same); State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 384 (1969) (requiring an identification instruction upon request when court has found pretrial procedure was unduly suggestive, but proposed in-court identification was nevertheless reliable); State Bar of Arizona, RAJI Std. | 3 | 3 |
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen1 sentence2021To determine whether a prejudicial error occurred, “we may consider the jury instructions as given, the evidence at trial, the parties’ theories, and the parties’ arguments to the jury.” State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, 285, ¶ 16 (App. 2015); see Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 , 52–53 (1987) (holding the right to confrontation usually is satisfied “if defense counsel receives wide latitude at trial to question witnesses”). 7 STATE v. RICCI Decision of the Court ¶22 Here, Ricci requested the court to modify the identification instruction to include language informing the jury that eyewitnes | 1 | 1 |
State v. Felixgreen1 sentence2021To determine whether a prejudicial error occurred, “we may consider the jury instructions as given, the evidence at trial, the parties’ theories, and the parties’ arguments to the jury.” State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, 285, ¶ 16 (App. 2015); see Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 , 52–53 (1987) (holding the right to confrontation usually is satisfied “if defense counsel receives wide latitude at trial to question witnesses”). 7 STATE v. RICCI Decision of the Court ¶22 Here, Ricci requested the court to modify the identification instruction to include language informing the jury that eyewitnes | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Powersgreen2 sentences2014Facts and Procedural History ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2 , 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). 2014Facts and Procedural History ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2 , 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1978And, it was noted in State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 151, 153 , 407 P.2d 106, 107 (1965), that the Arizona courts do follow the modern rule outlined in Gilbert “. . . that an identification made prior to the trial is of greater significance than one made in the courtroom, and that testimony of one who has observed such an incident is fully admissible.” As Justice Traynor wrote in People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 (1960): “. . . evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier 1978And, it was noted in State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 151, 153 , 407 P.2d 106, 107 (1965), that the Arizona courts do follow the modern rule outlined in Gilbert “. . . that an identification made prior to the trial is of greater significance than one made in the courtroom, and that testimony of one who has observed such an incident is fully admissible.” As Justice Traynor wrote in People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 (1960): “. . . evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Talley v. California
green
1 sentence2026Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.” Talley, 362 U.S. at 60–61, 63–65. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Kevil
green
2 sentences1978The recent trend, however, is to admit the prior identification under the exception that admits as substantive evidence a prior communication by a witness who is available for cross-examination at trial. . . .’” 111 Ariz. at 245 , 527 P.2d at 290 . 1978The recent trend, however, is to admit the prior identification under the exception that admits as substantive evidence a prior communication by a witness who is available for cross-examination at trial. . . .’” 111 Ariz. at 245 , 527 P.2d at 290 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Gould
green
1 sentence1978And, it was noted in State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 151, 153 , 407 P.2d 106, 107 (1965), that the Arizona courts do follow the modern rule outlined in Gilbert “. . . that an identification made prior to the trial is of greater significance than one made in the courtroom, and that testimony of one who has observed such an incident is fully admissible.” As Justice Traynor wrote in People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 (1960): “. . . evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Gould
green
2 sentences1978And, it was noted in State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 151, 153 , 407 P.2d 106, 107 (1965), that the Arizona courts do follow the modern rule outlined in Gilbert “. . . that an identification made prior to the trial is of greater significance than one made in the courtroom, and that testimony of one who has observed such an incident is fully admissible.” As Justice Traynor wrote in People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 (1960): “. . . evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier 1978And, it was noted in State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 151, 153 , 407 P.2d 106, 107 (1965), that the Arizona courts do follow the modern rule outlined in Gilbert “. . . that an identification made prior to the trial is of greater significance than one made in the courtroom, and that testimony of one who has observed such an incident is fully admissible.” As Justice Traynor wrote in People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 (1960): “. . . evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Brady
green
2 sentences1970State v. Brady, 105 Ariz. 190 , 461 P.2d 488 (1969). 1970State v. Brady, 105 Ariz. 190 , 461 P.2d 488 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.