Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Olquin, 165 P.3d 228.

54 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (appellate court will “defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because the trial court is in the best position to make that determination”).
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2014); ¶ 28 (App. 2007).
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bachler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (“[W]e do not impose our own determination as to the credibility of witnesses” and defer to the superior court since it “is in the best position to make that determination.”).
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 12 n.5 (App. 2007) (affirming for any reason supported by the record).
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Accordingly, we will defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because the trial court is in the best position to make that determination.” ¶ 10 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 22 (App. 2004)).
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See State v. Olquin , , 254, ¶ 22, , 232 (App. 2007) (observing that a DUI is considered a victimless crime because it can be committed absent involvement of any other person); State v. Sorkhabi , , 453, ¶ 11, , 1074 (App. 2002) (a "victimless crime" is "a crime which generally involves only the crim
In Re Isaiah A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Isaiah A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (“[W]e do not impose our own determination as to the credibility of witnesses .
State v. Regenold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Regenold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶6 On review, which Regenold claims directly supports his position that the identity of the "actual minor" depicted in the image is an element of sexual exploitation of a minor.
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-3553 requires actual living human being), ¶ 34, (because kidnapping and aggravated assault statutes prohibit conduct committed against “another person,” convictions under both statutes require a victim), and State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz 250, 254, ¶ 21, (statutes proscribing offenses against “another person” require the identity of the victim) establish, when viewed together, that the State must prove the actual identity of the minor to sustain a conviction under A.R.S.
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Colorado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Colorado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Loader Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 10 (App. 2007) (superior court "is in the best position to make [credibility] determination.").
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶18 When all the above factors are considered together, particularly in light of the detective’s substantial experience with tint violations, we cannot say the trial court erred in finding the detective had a good-faith, reasonable basis for suspecting the Concord’s window tint was illegal.7 See King, 244 F.3d at 738-39; (trial court in best position to assess witness credibility).
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4 STATE v. NEREIM Opinion of the Court ¶8 P.3d 228 (App. 2007), a case featuring similar facts.
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶8 Arguing the trial court both incorrectly relied on State v. Morgan, 128 Ariz. 362, for the proposition that an identified victim is not an element of the offense of endangerment, and failed to refer to State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, Villegas-Rojas urges us to vacate his endangerment 6 conviction.
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
ce of bad faith on the part of Officer Lewis, and, although we need not decide whether her detention of Hummons violated the Fourth Amendment, the trial court concluded it did not., In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, “we will defer *258 to [its] assessment of witness credibility because the trial court is in the best position to make that determination.”