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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2019 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. Hendersongreen2 sentences2019See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993)). 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of statutes and rules. 3 ¶6 “A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 541, ¶ 38 (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400, 404, ¶ 24 (App. 2000)). 2015State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005). ¶23 A Willits instruction may be given when police “negligently fail to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence . . . permit[ting] the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 503, ¶ 62 (1999). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hurleygreen1 sentence2019See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993)). 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of statutes and rules. 3 ¶6 “A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 541, ¶ 38 (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400, 404, ¶ 24 (App. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramseygreen1 sentence2019See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993)). 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of statutes and rules. 3 ¶6 “A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 541, ¶ 38 (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400, 404, ¶ 24 (App. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen1 sentence2019See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citing State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 572 (1993)). 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of statutes and rules. 3 ¶6 “A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 541, ¶ 38 (App. 2005) (quoting State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400, 404, ¶ 24 (App. 2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Flythegreen1 sentence2017State v. Flythe, 219 Ariz. 117, 119, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). ¶23 Leinaar asserts the "vast majority of trial time" was dedicated to presenting evidence that Stelljes set up and owned the business and the 7 STATE v. STELLJES Decision of the Court equipment that was seized; she argues this disparity unfairly "rubbed off" on her. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fulminantegreen1 sentence2015State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005). ¶23 A Willits instruction may be given when police “negligently fail to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence . . . permit[ting] the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” State v. Fulminante, 193 Ariz. 485, 503, ¶ 62 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gendrongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 , 812 P.2d 626, 627 (1991). 2014See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 , 812 P.2d 626, 627 (1991). | 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. Stuard
green
2 sentences2014And here, the evidence that Henderson may have had a general, as yet unrealized but inchoate, curiosity about anal sex did not show anything “so unusual and distinctive” as to constitute a “signature.” Stuard, 176 Ariz. at 597 , 863 P.2d at 889 . ¶22 Because Henderson did not object to the admission of evidence that he had an interest in anal sex for identity purposes, we review the court’s decision for fundamental error. 2014And here, the evidence that Henderson may have had a general, as yet unrealized but inchoate, curiosity about anal sex did not show anything “so unusual and distinctive” as to constitute a “signature.” Stuard, 176 Ariz. at 597 , 863 P.2d at 889 . ¶22 Because Henderson did not object to the admission of evidence that he had an interest in anal sex for identity purposes, we review the court’s decision for fundamental error. | 1 | 2014–2014 |