State v. McCutcheon

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing State v. Chapple, supra, because “there was prompt, positive, unambiguous eyewitness identification supported by considerable other physical evidence tying defendant to the crime”
• court did not err in rejecting expert testimony on eyewitness identification where there were no peculiar circumstances regarding identification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Atwood
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1992-07-10· cited 361×
• Commonwealth v. Santoli
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1997-05-08· cited 67×
• Campbell v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1991-06-24· cited 47×
• State v. Huerstel
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2003-09-02· cited 44×
• State v. Zimmerman
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-08-28· cited 16×
• State v. Lautzenheiser
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1994-09-20· cited 16×
• State v. Alwin
  Idaho Supreme Court· 2018-09-21· cited 16×
• State v. Sabala
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1997-01-28· cited 11×
• State v. Lautzenheiser
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-05-20· cited 5×