Legal Opinion

Kirkendall v. Fisher

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided July 20, 1976No. 2 CA-CIV 2239PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

Petitioners, defendants in pending prosecutions, invoked Rule 15.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, requesting the respondent court to allow them to depose certain prosecution witnesses, undercover agents of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad. Their motions were denied and they have sought special action relief, claiming the respondent court abused its discretion. Since the problem will continue to plague the bench and bar, we deem it appropriate to assume jurisdiction and grant relief.

The pertinent facts follow. Several undercover agents of the Metropolitan Area…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mota v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  2. State v. DeddensCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Murphy v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA COUNTYArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. PecoraMontana Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State v. DeRoseCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  4. State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
  5. Arcaris v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989

1 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