Skip to main content

State v. James

Citations

  • 242 Ariz. 126
  • 393 P.3d 467
  • 761 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14
  • 2017 WL 1174319
  • 2017 Ariz. App. LEXIS 56

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[W]e may affirm an evidentiary ruling on any basis supported by the record.”
  • “Rule 104(a) support[s] the proposition that an evidentiary hearing is not required simply because a defendant demands one or because confrontation and cross-examination are the best tools for developing facts, exposing inconsistencies, and determining witness credibility.”
  • “Given the absence of a true factual dispute regarding the other acts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the clear-and-convincing- evidence standard satisfied, even in the absence of a pretrial hearing with live witness testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Authored, Eckerstrom, Howard, Vásquez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.