stand before challenge in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2013 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Alliegreen ariz · 1985 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1986–2013 2 sentences 2013An exception exists when “a defendant must take the stand before he can challenge an adverse pretrial ruling.” State v. Allie, 147 Ariz. 320, 327 , 710 P.2d 430, 437 (1985); see also State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 386 , 385 P.2d 516, 518 (1963). 2013An exception exists when “a defendant must take the stand before he can challenge an adverse pretrial ruling.” State v. Allie, 147 Ariz. 320, 327 , 710 P.2d 430, 437 (1985); see also State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 386 , 385 P.2d 516, 518 (1963).	4	5
State v. Barkergreen ariz · 1963 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013An exception exists when “a defendant must take the stand before he can challenge an adverse pretrial ruling.” State v. Allie, 147 Ariz. 320, 327 , 710 P.2d 430, 437 (1985); see also State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 386 , 385 P.2d 516, 518 (1963). 2013An exception exists when “a defendant must take the stand before he can challenge an adverse pretrial ruling.” State v. Allie, 147 Ariz. 320, 327 , 710 P.2d 430, 437 (1985); see also State v. Barker, 94 Ariz. 383, 386 , 385 P.2d 516, 518 (1963).	1	1
State v. Montanogreen ariz · 2003 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior	1	1
State v. Smyersgreen ariz · 2004 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior	1	1
State v. Connergreen ariz · 1990 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005The rationale behind the rule is that "[w]ithout defendant's testimony, a reviewing court cannot properly weigh the probative value of the testimony against the impact of the impeachment." State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 102 , 786 P.2d 948 , 953 942 (1990). 2005The rationale behind the rule is that "[w]ithout defendant's testimony, a reviewing court cannot properly weigh the probative value of the testimony against the impact of the impeachment." State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 102 , 786 P.2d 948 , 953 942 (1990).	1	1
State v. Montanogreen ariz · 2003 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior	1	1
State v. Greengreen ariz · 2001 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior 2005See State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 498, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 271, 273 (2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montano, 204 Ariz. 413, 426, ¶ 66 , 65 P.3d 61, 74 (2003) (it is within the trial court's discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by 206 Ariz. 296 , 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 , 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of prior	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Commonwealth v. Farrior green pasuperct · 1983 2 sentences 2009As support for his argument, defendant relies on two cases from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, State v. Campbell, 212 N.J.Super. 322 , 514 A.2d 1357 (1986), and Commonwealth v. Farrior, 312 Pa.Super. 408 , 458 A.2d 1356 (1983). 2009As support for his argument, defendant relies on two cases from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, State v. Campbell, 212 N.J.Super. 322 , 514 A.2d 1357 (1986), and Commonwealth v. Farrior, 312 Pa.Super. 408 , 458 A.2d 1356 (1983).	1	2009–2009
State v. Campbell neutral njsuperctappdiv · 1986 2 sentences 2009As support for his argument, defendant relies on two cases from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, State v. Campbell, 212 N.J.Super. 322 , 514 A.2d 1357 (1986), and Commonwealth v. Farrior, 312 Pa.Super. 408 , 458 A.2d 1356 (1983). 2009As support for his argument, defendant relies on two cases from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, State v. Campbell, 212 N.J.Super. 322 , 514 A.2d 1357 (1986), and Commonwealth v. Farrior, 312 Pa.Super. 408 , 458 A.2d 1356 (1983).	1	2009–2009
Luce v. United States green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1985Our holding today is similar to that in Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. ___ , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). 1985Our holding today is similar to that in Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. ___ , 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4031 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check