Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Neely v. Sherrill

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1990No. CV-89-0265-PRPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*509OPINION

MOELLER, Justice.

JURISDICTION

After a mistrial in this criminal case, the defendant moved to preclude the state from using the victim’s in-court, post-hypnotic identification of defendant. The trial court granted the motion. On special action to the court of appeals, that court reversed and held the post-hypnotic identification admissible. We granted review pursuant to Rule 8(b) Ariz.R.P.Spec. Action § 8, 17B A.R.S., and have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(1). After oral argument, we affirmed the trial court’s order of exclusion and permitted the trial to proceed,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. State v. HurdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  3. People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
  5. People v. HughesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Logerquist v. McVeyArizona Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Hall v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1991
  3. Burral v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  4. State v. LopezArizona Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. LopezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API