Arizona Supreme Court· 11/3/1994

State v. King

Citations

883 P.2d 1024
180 Ariz. 268
177 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14
1994 Ariz. LEXIS 125

How courts have described this case

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

holding that where no new evidence was to be received, no evidence was improperly excluded, and mitigating evidence was, at best, de minimis, supreme court could reweigh factors, citing Bible
holding that the confrontation clause is satisfied when the hearsay declarant is subject to cross-examination
concluding that trial court properly admitted testimony from witnesses who had known defendant at time of crime and could therefore assist jury in identifying person depicted on video
holding that the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of prior inconsistent statements by a witness who testified at trial that he could no longer remember details of the crime
holding that law of the case is procedural, not substantive, and a \court does not lack the power to change a ruling simply because it ruled on the question at an earlier stage\
concluding that record supported trial court’s finding that witness feigned loss of memory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Corcoran, Moeller, Feldman, Zlaket, Martone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

64 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

60 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.