6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bilke v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Bilke v. State , 206 Ariz. 462 , 464 ¶ 11, 80 P.3d 269 (2003) (stating that in construing a statute, we look to the plain language of the statute, giving effect to every word and phrase, and assigning to each word its plain and common meaning). 2018See Bilke v. State , 206 Ariz. 462 , 464 ¶ 11, 80 P.3d 269 (2003) (stating that in construing a statute, we look to the plain language of the statute, giving effect to every word and phrase, and assigning to each word its plain and common meaning). | 1 | 1 |
Percy William Herman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018See Crow , 104 Ariz. at 583 -84 , 457 P.2d 256 (holding that the crime exception could be applied to crimes against a spouse's family, and was not limited to crimes in which a defendant physically injured the other spouse); see also Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 (noting that the crime exception "has been expanded ... to include crimes against the spouse's property ... and in recent years crimes against children of either spouse" (citing Herman v. United States , 220 F.2d 219 , 226 (4th Cir. 1955) (property crimes), and United States v. Allery , 526 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1975) (crim | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crowgreen2 sentences2018See Crow , 104 Ariz. at 583 -84 , 457 P.2d 256 (holding that the crime exception could be applied to crimes against a spouse's family, and was not limited to crimes in which a defendant physically injured the other spouse); see also Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 (noting that the crime exception "has been expanded ... to include crimes against the spouse's property ... and in recent years crimes against children of either spouse" (citing Herman v. United States , 220 F.2d 219 , 226 (4th Cir. 1955) (property crimes), and United States v. Allery , 526 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1975) (crim 2018See Crow , 104 Ariz. at 583 -84 , 457 P.2d 256 (holding that the crime exception could be applied to crimes against a spouse's family, and was not limited to crimes in which a defendant physically injured the other spouse); see also Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 (noting that the crime exception "has been expanded ... to include crimes against the spouse's property ... and in recent years crimes against children of either spouse" (citing Herman v. United States , 220 F.2d 219 , 226 (4th Cir. 1955) (property crimes), and United States v. Allery , 526 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1975) (crim | 1 | 1 |
People v. Satchellgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Allerygreen1 sentence2018See Crow , 104 Ariz. at 583 -84 , 457 P.2d 256 (holding that the crime exception could be applied to crimes against a spouse's family, and was not limited to crimes in which a defendant physically injured the other spouse); see also Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 (noting that the crime exception "has been expanded ... to include crimes against the spouse's property ... and in recent years crimes against children of either spouse" (citing Herman v. United States , 220 F.2d 219 , 226 (4th Cir. 1955) (property crimes), and United States v. Allery , 526 F.2d 1362 (8th Cir. 1975) (crim | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salazargreen2 sentences2018In reaching this conclusion we explained that the crime exception applies when "the crime committed [s]o closely touches or affects the other spouse as to render the reason for the rule-promotion of marital peace and apprehension of marital dissension-inapplicable." Id. at 585 , 457 P.2d 256 ; see also State v. Salazar , 146 Ariz. 547 , 548, 550, 707 P.2d 951 (App. 1985) (holding that the crime exception permitted a wife to testify in her husband's trial for vehicular manslaughter and DUI when the husband was also charged with endangering his wife, and all the charges arose from the same cours 2018In reaching this conclusion we explained that the crime exception applies when "the crime committed [s]o closely touches or affects the other spouse as to render the reason for the rule-promotion of marital peace and apprehension of marital dissension-inapplicable." Id. at 585 , 457 P.2d 256 ; see also State v. Salazar , 146 Ariz. 547 , 548, 550, 707 P.2d 951 (App. 1985) (holding that the crime exception permitted a wife to testify in her husband's trial for vehicular manslaughter and DUI when the husband was also charged with endangering his wife, and all the charges arose from the same cours | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fordgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018This exception, like the privilege itself, is a "longstanding one at common law." Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 . ¶ 12 The crime exception, by its terms, applies to any "crime" committed by one spouse against the other spouse. 2018This exception, like the privilege itself, is a "longstanding one at common law." Trammel , 445 U.S. at 46 n.7, 100 S.Ct. 906 . ¶ 12 The crime exception, by its terms, applies to any "crime" committed by one spouse against the other spouse. | 1 | 1 |
Hageman v. Vanderdoesgreen2 sentences2000See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Van-derdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We thus conclude that when the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer, or as an element of a crime, the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction. 2000See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Van-derdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We thus conclude that when the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer, or as an element of a crime, the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Fernandez v. Romogreen2 sentences2000See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Van-derdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We thus conclude that when the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer, or as an element of a crime, the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction. 2000See Fernandez v. Romo, 132 Ariz. 447, 449 , 646 P.2d 878, 880 (1982) (stating that when a court-made rule is based upon the circumstances and conditions of the time, the rule can be changed by the court when such conditions and circumstances change); see also Hageman v. Van-derdoes, 15 Ariz. 312, 320-21 , 138 P. 1053, 1056 (1914) (same). ¶ 15 We thus conclude that when the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer, or as an element of a crime, the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences1990See Rule 801(c), Arizona Rules of Evidence; State v. Rivera, 139 Ariz. 409, 413 , 678 P.2d 1373, 1377 (1984). 1990See Rule 801(c), Arizona Rules of Evidence; State v. Rivera, 139 Ariz. 409, 413 , 678 P.2d 1373, 1377 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Wiley v. Stategreen2 sentences1980See Wiley v. State, 237 Md. 560 , 207 A.2d 478 (App.1965). 1980See Wiley v. State, 237 Md. 560 , 207 A.2d 478 (App.1965). | 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. Kelly
green
2 sentences1988Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. 1988Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. | 2 | 1981–1988 |
Johnson v. Gunn
green
2 sentences1988Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. 1981Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974) cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. | 2 | 1981–1988 |
Clark v. McCarthy
green
2 sentences1988Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. 1981Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974) cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. | 2 | 1981–1988 |
Gupta v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. 1981Although the introduction into evidence of mug shots or the mention of the fact that the police had photos of the defendant taken sometime before the crime can be error when it infers a prior arrest, State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181 , 526 P.2d 720 (1974) cert. den. 420 U.S. 935 , 95 S.Ct. 1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975), that is not the situation here. | 2 | 1981–1988 |
State v. Thornton
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Vieau
neutral
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Wall
green
2 sentences2018"An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion." Busso-Estopellan v. Mroz , 238 Ariz. 553 , 554 ¶ 5, 364 P.3d 472 (2015) (quoting State v. Wall , 212 Ariz. 1 , 3 ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 148 (2006) ). ¶ 23 Craig conceded at oral argument that if the crime exception applies to H.C.'s testimony regarding the DUI charges, there is no basis for severance. 2018"An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion." Busso-Estopellan v. Mroz , 238 Ariz. 553 , 554 ¶ 5, 364 P.3d 472 (2015) (quoting State v. Wall , 212 Ariz. 1 , 3 ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 148 (2006) ). ¶ 23 Craig conceded at oral argument that if the crime exception applies to H.C.'s testimony regarding the DUI charges, there is no basis for severance. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Whitaker
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 540-42 , 544 P.2d 219 . ¶ 16 In applying the crime exception in Whitaker , we used a different test than the one used in Crow . 2018Id. at 540-42 , 544 P.2d 219 . ¶ 16 In applying the crime exception in Whitaker , we used a different test than the one used in Crow . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery
neutral
1 sentence2018City Prosecutor v. Lowery , 244 Ariz. 308 , 310 ¶ 1, 418 P.3d 1081 (App. 2018). ¶ 5 We granted review because the scope of the anti-marital fact privilege and the crime exception are recurring issues of statewide importance. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Briley
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, we relied on a New Jersey case, State v. Briley , 53 N.J. 498 , 251 A.2d 442 (1969), which involved a defendant's "atrocious assault and battery" of his wife and murder of her acquaintance, with "both charges growing out of a single incident." Whitaker , 112 Ariz. at 541 , 544 P.2d 219 . 2018Applying this rationale, we concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendant's wife to testify, noting that "Mrs. Whitaker and her child were potential victims of defendant's assault" and "[t]he evidence is sufficient from which the trial court could find that Mrs. Whitaker and her daughter were endangered by the gunfire." Id. at 542 , 544 P.2d 219 . ¶ 17 In sum, Whitaker holds that when a defendant commits a crime "against" his or her spouse and is charged for that crime, the crime exception allows the witness-spouse to testify not only regarding that c | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. mroz/state
green
2 sentences2018"An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion." Busso-Estopellan v. Mroz , 238 Ariz. 553 , 554 ¶ 5, 364 P.3d 472 (2015) (quoting State v. Wall , 212 Ariz. 1 , 3 ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 148 (2006) ). ¶ 23 Craig conceded at oral argument that if the crime exception applies to H.C.'s testimony regarding the DUI charges, there is no basis for severance. 2018"An error of law committed in reaching a discretionary conclusion may, however, constitute an abuse of discretion." Busso-Estopellan v. Mroz , 238 Ariz. 553 , 554 ¶ 5, 364 P.3d 472 (2015) (quoting State v. Wall , 212 Ariz. 1 , 3 ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 148 (2006) ). ¶ 23 Craig conceded at oral argument that if the crime exception applies to H.C.'s testimony regarding the DUI charges, there is no basis for severance. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller v. State
neutral
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mowery
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because 2018See, e.g. , People v. Ford , 60 Cal.2d 772 , 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 , 901 (1964) (concluding that crime exception applied to wife's testimony where defendant kidnapped wife and shot police officer because "the crime of kidnaping was still being committed when the shooting occurred"), overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Satchell , 6 Cal.3d 28 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 489 P.2d 1361 (1971) ; People v. Vieau , 136 Mich.App. 670 , 357 N.W.2d 736 , 738 (1984) (relying on Briley and concluding that the crime exception applied where defendant shot his wife and her acquaintance because | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.