Skip to main content

State v. Mills

Citations

  • 995 P.2d 705
  • 196 Ariz. 269

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that the trial court understood the jeopardy that a witness faced from cross-examination
  • holding that prior-act evidence was prejudicial but not unduly so because it did not suggest a decision on an improper basis
  • observing that “an unseen restraint could not have affected the presumption of innocence” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • defendant forfeited argument by first raising it in motion for new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flórez, Druke, Pelander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

35 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.