Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonzalez, 278 P.3d 328.

24 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–80, ¶¶ 20–21 (App. 2008) (trial court properly “permit[ed] an expert to testify that he believed the quantity of drugs [the defendant] had possessed were for sale, rather than personal use”); –54, ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (“Expert testimony that drug traffickers do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters is not drug courier profile evidence, but rather, is modus operandi evidence.”).
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–54 ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (“Expert testimony that drug traffickers do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters is not drug courier profile evidence, but rather, is modus operandi evidence.”).
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 15 (App. 2012) (approving use of modus operandi evidence as circumstantial evidence of knowledge).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
702(a); Garcia-Quintana, 234 Ariz. at 272–73, ¶ 23 (finding no error in the admission of testimony about the routes used by drug traffickers, the methods used to avoid detection, and how marijuana is packaged and carried across the Mexican border into the United States); ¶ 15 (App. 2012) (holding that testimony about the general operations of a drug-trafficking organization was not inadmissible profile evidence where it “provided circumstantial evidence of [the defendant’s] knowledge of the drug
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –54 ¶ 13 (App. 2012); –52 ¶¶ 9–12 (1998).
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 13 (App. 2012) (“Unlike drug courier profile evidence, modus operandi evidence is .
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Gonzalez , , ¶ 1
State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 1 , (holding that “expert testimony as to the modus operandi of a drug organization may, depending upon the facts of the case, be admitted as evidence”) (emphasis added).
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
properly admitted to assist the jury in understanding the modus operandi of a drug trafficking organization.” ¶ 13
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See, 296-97, 1223-24 (1983) (expert testimony regarding general reliability of eye-witness identification admissible without any opinion regarding accuracy of specific identification made by witnesses); (expert testimony regarding “general practices of drug organizations” relevant and admissible); (expert witness may testify as to general characteristics and behavior of sex offenders and victims if information no
State v. Martinez 278 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012