6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Valverdegreen2 sentences2018See State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 288, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (holding that we must, “in considering whether an instruction is harmless error . . . consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); see also State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 586, ¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”). 2016Cf. State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); State v. Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, 446, ¶ 40 (2008) (explaining that the child molestation allegation that was improperly admitted “was not a passing reference, but rather a repeated theme of the State’s closing argument”). ¶30 Given the nature and context of the error, and the totality of the evidence presented, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace’s improper probabilities testimony did not contribute to or affect | 4 | 4 |
State v. Kinkadegreen2 sentences2009See State v. Kinkade, 140 Ariz. 91, 94-95 , 680 P.2d 801, 804-05 (1984) (counsel’s statements to the jury are relevant in determining the impact of an erroneous instruction). 2009See State v. Kinkade, 140 Ariz. 91, 94-95 , 680 P.2d 801, 804-05 (1984) (counsel’s statements to the jury are relevant in determining the impact of an erroneous instruction). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Solisgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 288, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (holding that we must, “in considering whether an instruction is harmless error . . . consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); see also State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 586, ¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anthonygreen1 sentence2016Cf. State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 16 (2009) (“In assessing the impact of an erroneous instruction, we also consider the attorneys’ statements to the jury.”); State v. Anthony, 218 Ariz. 439, 446, ¶ 40 (2008) (explaining that the child molestation allegation that was improperly admitted “was not a passing reference, but rather a repeated theme of the State’s closing argument”). ¶30 Given the nature and context of the error, and the totality of the evidence presented, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace’s improper probabilities testimony did not contribute to or affect | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen1 sentence2016See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 ; see also Moran, 151 Ariz. at 383 (explaining that an error caused by expert testimony regarding the victim’s veracity may be harmless “[i]n [some] cases”); State v. Crane, 166 Ariz. 3, 7 (App. 1990) (concluding that social worker’s improper opinion testimony regarding victim’s truthfulness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); cf. State v. Tucker, 165 Ariz. 340, 350 (App. 1990) (holding that testimony of expert witness in violation of Lindsey and Moran standards was not harmless because it “was the victim's word against the defendant's”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tuckergreen1 sentence2016See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 ; see also Moran, 151 Ariz. at 383 (explaining that an error caused by expert testimony regarding the victim’s veracity may be harmless “[i]n [some] cases”); State v. Crane, 166 Ariz. 3, 7 (App. 1990) (concluding that social worker’s improper opinion testimony regarding victim’s truthfulness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); cf. State v. Tucker, 165 Ariz. 340, 350 (App. 1990) (holding that testimony of expert witness in violation of Lindsey and Moran standards was not harmless because it “was the victim's word against the defendant's”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morangreen1 sentence2016See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 ; see also Moran, 151 Ariz. at 383 (explaining that an error caused by expert testimony regarding the victim’s veracity may be harmless “[i]n [some] cases”); State v. Crane, 166 Ariz. 3, 7 (App. 1990) (concluding that social worker’s improper opinion testimony regarding victim’s truthfulness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); cf. State v. Tucker, 165 Ariz. 340, 350 (App. 1990) (holding that testimony of expert witness in violation of Lindsey and Moran standards was not harmless because it “was the victim's word against the defendant's”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cranegreen1 sentence2016See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588 ; see also Moran, 151 Ariz. at 383 (explaining that an error caused by expert testimony regarding the victim’s veracity may be harmless “[i]n [some] cases”); State v. Crane, 166 Ariz. 3, 7 (App. 1990) (concluding that social worker’s improper opinion testimony regarding victim’s truthfulness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); cf. State v. Tucker, 165 Ariz. 340, 350 (App. 1990) (holding that testimony of expert witness in violation of Lindsey and Moran standards was not harmless because it “was the victim's word against the defendant's”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.