Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rojers, 169 P.3d 651.

29 citing documents.

University Medical v. Health Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
University Medical v. Health Choice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–61, ¶ 26 (App. 2007) (recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of an agency’s published manuals); Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review a ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2016), viewing the evidence from the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to affirming the court’s ruling, ¶ 17 (App. 2007).
Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bnccorp v. Hub Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
201(b)(1), (2) (a court may take judicial notice on its own or if it is requested); Climate Control, modified on reh’g on other grounds by P.2d 771 (1960) (explaining that a court may take judicial notice of administrative regulations); ¶ 26, (citations omitted) (stating a court may take judicial notice of an agency’s published manuals).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-61, ¶¶ 25-26 (App. 2007).
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thus, the evidence Appellant seeks to suppress would have been inevitably discovered during the ensuing inventory search of the car.2 ¶ 18, (“The inevitable discovery doctrine .
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Siewert testified at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that, even if alcohol was not a factor in this case, because the Corvette’s driver was not at the crime scene, Siewert would have collected a DNA sample from Clary in an effort to determine if that sample matched up to evidence on “the airbag or something of that manner.” ¶ 18, (“The inevitable discovery doctrine, which is an exception to the exclusionary rule, provides that illegally obtained evidence is admissible [i]f the prosecution c
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-61, ¶¶ 25-26 (App. 2007).
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371-73 (1987); -62, ¶¶ 12-33, -58 (App. 2007) (stating that although a search of the defendant’s vehicle did not fit within the search incident to arrest exception, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine because it would inevitably have been discovered during the inventory search tha
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally obtained evidence is admissible if “‘the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally seized items or information would have inevitably been seized by lawful means.’”
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 26, (holding that a court can take judicial notice of an agency’s published manuals); Ariz. R. Evid.
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, ¶ 19, (“preponderance of the evidence” means “more likely than not”).
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 19 , -14 , -18 (1989) ("Defendant cannot take his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the 'hole card’ of a later appeal on an evidentiary matter that was curable at trial, and then seek appellate reversal from an unfavorable verdict.”), 1124
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(argument not raised in suppression motion or at suppression hearing forfeited absent fundamental error).