DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Curiel, 634 P.2d 988.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Woodley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Woodley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    However, because the rules governing joinder and severance must be read together, a defendant is entitled to have the offenses severed as a matter of right when they are joined by virtue of Rule 13.3(a)(1) “unless evidence of the other offense or offenses would be admissible if the offenses were tried separately.” Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See, –62 (1977) (sufficient evidence defendant possessed marijuana where it was found “in a place where [defendant] would have knowledge of its presence” even if defendant was not sole occupant); –80, 184 (App. 1981) (evidence that defendant tried to conceal drugs and had related paraphernalia in her purse sufficient to establish drug possession despite absence of exclusive control).
  • Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “[W]here evidence is erroneously admitted, reversal is required only when it is reasonably probable that, absent the tainted evidence, the jury would have reached a different conclusion.” see also Brown v. U.S. Fid.
  • State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    P. 17.4); , (reversing the defendant's conviction based on the trial court's failure to grant a continuance in order for the defendant to obtain a transcript from the preliminary hearing); , (setting aside convictions and remanding for a new trial when the defendant's charges were improperly joined pursuant to Rule 13.3(a)).
  • State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Winkle 922 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1996
    Evidence of Coffman’s prior abuse of the victims that occurred before he met Van Winkle, and evidence of his abuse of the victims that occurred during his relationship with Van Winkle, but in which Van Winkle did not participate, bears no relevance to Van Winkle’s , (husband’s previous sale of heroin irrelevant to wife’s intent in subsequent heroin sale).
  • State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Comer 799 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Ybarra 751 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Ybarra 751 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    (wrongful refusal to give urine sample is nontestimonial; therefore, comment on refusal does not violate the Fifth Amendment).
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
    (holding that there is no right to counsel during such temporary detention).
  • State v. Waggoner 679 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Waggoner 679 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983