State v. Torres

Decision Date07 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 1304,1304
CitationState v. Torres, 97 Ariz. 364, 400 P.2d 843 (Ariz. 1965)
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert TORRES, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Robert W. Pickrell, then Atty. Gen., Howard Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Peterson, Estrada, Matz & Machmer, Phoenix, for appellant.

UDALL, Justice.

The defendant was charged with the sale of narcotic drug, to-wit, heroin, in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.02 (1961). The evidence shows that on February 1, 1962 the defendant was approached by two special agents of the Narcotics Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses & Control at the Tivoli Bar located at Second Avenue and Madison Street in Phoenix. George Tabizon, one of the agents, spoke to the defendant and asked him if he could get them a paper of heroin. The defendant stated that he could, and immediately thereafter the two agents, the defendant, and a woman named Alicia Salazar, drove in accordance with defendant's direction, to 1920 E. Sherman Street. The defendant then asked for and received $10 from Tabizon, and the defendant left the car and proceeded to the side door of the house at the above address, where he met and talked with an individual standing outside of the house. Approximately five minutes later the defendant returned to the car and handed Tabizon a white folded paper, which Tabizon placed in his shirt pocket.

The group then all got in the agent's car and returned to Third Street and Madison were one of the agents and the woman alighted from the car, but the defendant and Tabizon continued to the area of Madison and Second Street where the defendant left the car.

Tabizon then drove directly to the Liquor Control office where the white paper was placed in an envelope and put in a private locker until the next afternoon when Agent Davis took the envelope and its contents to the Arizona Testing Laboratory where the chemist analyzed the contents of the paper and found that it contained 72 grams of heroin powder. The defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty as charged. From the judgment of conviction he appealed.

The defendant contends the trial court erred in not permitting defendant to question the state's witness concerning the dismissal of criminal charges against the witness in order to show the witness's interest or motive in testifying on behalf of the state. The defendant asserts that he should have been given wide latitude in cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution, for the purpose of showing any motive, bias, or interest the witness may have had in testifying against the defendant. The question that was asked by defense counsel of one of the special agents reads as follows:

'Q Isn't it true that on February 13, 1962, burglary charges were dismissed against you provided you would cooperate with the police?'

The County Attorney objected to this line of questioning. Thereupon the County Attorney and defense...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
15 cases
  • State v. Vargas
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2021
    ...). Moreover, casting doubt on the credibility of witness testimony is a proper purpose of cross-examination. See State v. Torres , 97 Ariz. 364, 366, 400 P.2d 843, 845 (1965) (cross-examiner given "great latitude" to impeach credibility of witness). Thus, as the state contends, "asking Carr......
  • State v. Vargas
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 2021
    ...Moreover, casting doubt on the credibility of witness testimony is a proper purpose of cross-examination. See State v. Torres, 97 Ariz. 364, 366, 400 P.2d 843 (1965) (cross-examiner given "great latitude" to impeach credibility of witness). Thus, as the state contends, "asking Carroll quest......
  • Fulton v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1976
    ...(1971) ('witness may be questioned about prior arrests and convictions for the purpose of testing credibility'). Cf. State v. Torres, 97 Ariz. 364, 400 P.2d 843 (1965). The majority view reflects various considerations. The admission of such evidence might unduly prejudice a jury against th......
  • State v. Vargas
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 2019
    ...argument is curious; casting doubt on the credibility of witness testimony is a proper purpose of cross-examination. See State v. Torres, 97 Ariz. 364, 366 (1965) (cross-examiner given "great latitude" to impeach credibility). 5. Although this argument is included under the prosecutorial mi......
  • Get Started for Free