Arizona Supreme Court· 4/17/1984

State v. Woods

Citations

687 P.2d 1201
141 Ariz. 446
1984 Ariz. LEXIS 225

How courts have described this case

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

holding trial court has discretion under Rule 608(b) to allow cross-examination of witness regarding specific acts of misconduct if they are probative of truthfulness
explaining a trial court has substantial discretion to allow cross-examination of a witness about specific acts of misconduct, but the utility of the evidence must be weighed against the possibility of prejudice under Rule 403
determining trial court had discretion under Rule 608(b) to allow cross- examination about specific acts of misconduct if they are probative of truthfulness provided the acts are not proved by extrinsic evidence and the court weighs any probative value against any prejudice
“[W]e agree that violation of the constitutional light to a unanimous verdict would constitute fundamental error and could be raised for the first time on appeal.”
no abuse of discretion by trial court in ruling that charge of theft by fraud was not probative of truthfulness
“argument must not be based on matters which were not or could not have been received in evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cameron, Feldman, Gordon, Hays, Holohan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 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.