Legal Opinion

State v. Steinle

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided July 23, 2015No. 1 CA-SA 14-0214PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

OROZCO, Judge:

¶ 1 The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (the State) petitions this Court for special action relief, challenging the trial court’s order precluding it from introducing as evidence a modified, edited or cropped version of a video, because the full version of the video was unavailable. Because Arizona Rules of Evidence 106 and 403 require admission of the full video, we accept jurisdiction and deny relief.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 On December 12, 2012, Alejandra Moran attended a house party. On the same evening, a fight began in the street and a witness, Hector…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. RaineySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Sprint/United Management Co. v. MendelsohnSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew PayneArizona Supreme Court · 2013
  4. State v. CruzArizona Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. Steinle ex rel. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  2. People of Michigan v. Jay Scott ClarkMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019
  3. State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra MoranArizona Supreme Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API