Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. White, 747 P.2d 613.

26 citing documents.

State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 14 (App. 1998) (citation omitted); (holding that jury could infer that 16 STATE v. PADILLA Decision of the Court DUI defendant’s BAC test reading of .234 one hour after arrest showed intoxication at time of arrest).
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–58 (App. 1987) (admitting breath-test results after officer “testified that he conducted calibration checks on the machine”).
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 This Court has consistently held “that police are not obliged to inform DUI suspects of their right to independent testing.” State v. Superior Court (Norris), ( ).
State v. Lummus 950 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lummus 950 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
At a hearing on the motion, the prosecutor said that the State would not violate the rules laid down in either Fuenning (discouraging testimony on the ultimate issue) , (impermissible for officer to testify that defendant was “under the influence”).
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 888 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 888 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 875 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Fuenning at 596, 680 P.2d at 127
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 826 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the defendant argued that the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the state’s case because the state had not presented any relation-back evidence.
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
expanded on this somewhat and held that police are not required to inform a defendant who has been given a breath test of his right to an independent blood test.
State v. Goodwin 773 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Goodwin 773 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989