Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Zamora, 202 P.3d 528.

70 citing documents.

State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 7 (App. 2009) (permitting this Court to infer the necessary findings to affirm the superior court, “only if the implied findings do not conflict with the court’s express findings”).
State v. Dammann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Dammann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 1 n.2 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
State v. Snow-Ingram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Snow-Ingram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-68 ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (proving a Miranda violation requires defendant to show he was “in custody” and was not read Miranda warnings before police began a “custodial interrogation[]”).
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(in reviewing denial of motion to suppress, “[w]e will infer the warning and returned her license and registration.
State v. Spink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Spink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Police are free to ask questions of a person who is not in custody without having to give the person any warnings under Miranda.” ¶ 9 (App. 2009) (citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434–35 (1991); ¶ 15 (App. 1998)).
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Followed State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“On questions of federal constitutional law, we are bound by decisions of our supreme court absent a subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court on the same subject.” ¶ 15 n.7 (App. 2009).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (App. 2009) (reviewing court will infer any necessary findings to affirm the lower court’s ruling).
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“If the police fail to inform a suspect of his rights before engaging in ‘custodial interrogation,’ statements made by the suspect are excluded from evidence at trial unless they are spontaneous.” ¶ 10 (App. 2009).
State v. Aldana 497 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Aldana 497 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 1 As recognized in State v. Zamora, because the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Seibert was merely a plurality, Justice Kennedy’s separate concurring opinion is controlling on this issue “because it is the narrowest opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 “Police are free to ask questions of a person who is not in custody without having to give the person any warnings under Miranda.” ¶ 9 (App. 2009).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; -68, ¶ 9 (App. 2009).
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2001), and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., ).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, , but we review de novo its legal determinations
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Peterman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; ¶ 9 (App. 2009).
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
7 n.2, ¶ 1 (App. 2009) (citing Seibert, 542 U.S. at 604).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(remanding where no hearing held on probable cause); ¶¶ 8, 21, 536 (App. 2009) (remanding where record insufficiently clear to decide suppression on appeal); -64 (App. 2012) (remanding where trial court decided case on different issue); cf. Boteo-Flores, 288 P.3d at 114 (reman
State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444; ¶ 9
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10, (providing that a person is in “custody” when a reasonable man would feel that he was deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way).
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–68 ¶ 10, –33 (App. 2009).
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fischer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶28 Finally, in considering the court’s express findings, we will infer the necessary findings to affirm, but we “will do so only if the implied findings do not conflict with the court's express findings.” ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 , (noting we will infer findings necessary to affirm the trial court as long as there is no conflict with any express findings) ( ¶8 , and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , 629
State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 100 (1975); ¶ 10
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015