Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–1990 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fullergreen2 sentences1987Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; “Whether to order a deposition under Rule 15.3 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 574 , 694 P.2d 1185, 1987Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; “Whether to order a deposition under Rule 15.3 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 574 , 694 P.2d 1185, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schoonovergreen2 sentences1987Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; “Whether to order a deposition under Rule 15.3 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 574 , 694 P.2d 1185, 1987Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; “Whether to order a deposition under Rule 15.3 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 574 , 694 P.2d 1185, | 1 | 1 |
Weatherford v. Burseygreen2 sentences1984Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: ****** (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview;*** 2 *278 While “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case,” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 1984Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: ****** (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview;*** 2 *278 While “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case,” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Purcell v. City Ct. of City of Phoenixgreen2 sentences1982Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (1) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case and that there is a substantial likelihood that he will not be available at the time of trial; (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal 1982Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (1) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case and that there is a substantial likelihood that he will not be available at the time of trial; (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal | 1 | 1 |
Barber v. Pagegreen2 sentences1973We are satisfied it neither violates the confrontation clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 2, § 24, nor the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as long as the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and there was “ * * * a sufficient good faith showing * * * that the witness [es] had been subpoenaed and *116 [was] not available for the trial * * State v. Dixon, 107 Ariz. 415, 419 , 489 P.2d 225, 229 (1971); See also, Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). 1973We are satisfied it neither violates the confrontation clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 2, § 24, nor the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as long as the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and there was “ * * * a sufficient good faith showing * * * that the witness [es] had been subpoenaed and *116 [was] not available for the trial * * State v. Dixon, 107 Ariz. 415, 419 , 489 P.2d 225, 229 (1971); See also, Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences1973We are satisfied it neither violates the confrontation clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 2, § 24, nor the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as long as the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and there was “ * * * a sufficient good faith showing * * * that the witness [es] had been subpoenaed and *116 [was] not available for the trial * * State v. Dixon, 107 Ariz. 415, 419 , 489 P.2d 225, 229 (1971); See also, Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). 1973We are satisfied it neither violates the confrontation clause of the Arizona Constitution, art. 2, § 24, nor the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as long as the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and there was “ * * * a sufficient good faith showing * * * that the witness [es] had been subpoenaed and *116 [was] not available for the trial * * State v. Dixon, 107 Ariz. 415, 419 , 489 P.2d 225, 229 (1971); See also, Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). | 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. Moncayo
green
2 sentences1990Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; As the rule expressly provides, the decision whether to order the deposition is within the trial court’s discretion. 2 See State v. Moncayo, 115 Ariz. 274 1990Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances: (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; As the rule expressly provides, the decision whether to order the deposition is within the trial court’s discretion. 2 See State v. Moncayo, 115 Ariz. 274 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Jessen
green
2 sentences1984State v. Jessen, 134 Ariz. 458 , 657 P.2d 871 (1982). 1984State v. Jessen, 134 Ariz. 458 , 657 P.2d 871 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Dunlap
green
2 sentences1982State v. Dunlap, 125 Ariz. 104 , 608 P.2d 41 (1980). 1982State v. Dunlap, 125 Ariz. 104 , 608 P.2d 41 (1980). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Deddens
green
2 sentences1976Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances : * * * * * (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, *212 and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; . . . ” In our recent case of State v. Deddens, 26 Ariz.App. 241 , 547 P.2d 512 (1976), where we cited Rule 15.3(a), we recognized the cou 1976Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances : * * * * * (2) A party shows that the person’s testimony is material to the case or necessary adequately to prepare a defense or investigate the offense, that he was not a witness at the preliminary hearing, *212 and that he will not cooperate in granting a personal interview; . . . ” In our recent case of State v. Deddens, 26 Ariz.App. 241 , 547 P.2d 512 (1976), where we cited Rule 15.3(a), we recognized the cou | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1972Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). 1972Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.