Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia-Quintana, 321 P.3d 432.

26 citing documents.

State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whipple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (2017), and—because Driffin objected to the State’s motion in limine regarding the detective’s testimony—we review any error for harmless error, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preserved for 5 STATE v. DRIFFIN Decision of the Court appeal.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thus, behavioral evidence may be admitted “to assist a jury in understanding the modus operandi of a drug-trafficking organization,” ¶ 22 (2018), or “to explain how a person’s actions may indicate their active participation in a crime,” ¶ 13 (App. 2014).
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
On the other hand, modus operandi evidence, which “focuses on [a drug-trafficking organization’s] usual patterns or methods,” is admissible “to explain how a person’s actions may indicate their active participation in a crime.” –71, ¶ 13 (App. 2014).
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 6 (App. 2014) (applying fundamental-error review “[b]ecause the court never ruled on Defendant’s motion in limine and Defendant did not object at trial” (–44, ¶ 21 (App. 2013))).
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, –73, ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
That said, an “expert may not provide an opinion comparing the modus operandi of [a drug- trafficking] organization with the conduct of a defendant in a particular case” because “it is the province of the jury to determine whether a defendant’s conduct fits within the modus operandi of a drug trafficking organization.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014); see also Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 143, ¶ 25 (observing that an expert may explain how certain items “can be used to mask the smell of illegal drugs from police do
State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –73 ¶¶ 23– 24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –73 ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Drug courier profiles “consist of an ‘informal compilation of characteristics’ or an ‘abstract of characteristics’ typically displayed by persons trafficking in illegal drugs.” ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (quoting Lee, 191 Ariz. at 545, ¶ 12).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-74, ¶¶ 11-29 (2014) (holding that expert testimony on the methods used by drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs across the desert was permissible modus operandi testimony, not impermissible drug courier profile evidence).
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
at ¶ 16; -70, 273, ¶¶ 7, 29 , -36, 438 (App. 2014) (holding that testimony regarding common counter-surveillance techniques used by drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the country was admissible to show “how the actions of Defendant fit into the modus oper-andi of a drug trafficking organi
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