Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Delgado, 848 P.2d 337.

36 citing documents.

ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ROBBINS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Preclusion of evidence is “rarely an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation” and should be used as a “last resort.”
State v. Malerba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Malerba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶18 Because “[a] witness should be precluded only as a last resort,” (citation omitted), the court also acted within its discretion in denying the only requested relief—striking Romanski’s rebuttal testimony, –54, ¶¶ 40–41 (2004) (stating the superior court “should seek 5
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶28 While “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, compel their attendance, and present a defense is guaranteed” by the constitution, the imposition of a preclusion sanction for a disclosure violation “does not necessarily violate the Sixth Amendment.”
State v. Bedonie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bedonie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
And the superior court “has considerable discretion in resolving motions to amend an indictment.”
State v. Burrows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burrows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 114 (2004); ¶ 22 (App. 1999)
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Delgado , , 257, , 342 (App. 1993).
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, -60, -45 (App. 1993) (recognizing that “preclusion 9 STATE v. CLARY Decision of the Court ¶17 Clary does not cite to the record where the items were used at trial, and our review of
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(superior court should use preclusion as a last resort, but otherwise has wide latitude in determining whether to impose sanctions and choice of sanctions for discovery violation); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 “The trial court has considerable discretion in resolving motions to amend an indictment.”
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
) (recognizing that “restitution orders in excess of amounts alleged in charging documents on which convictions were based have been affirmed” (citation omitted)); ¶ 14, (stating that “the restitution statutes do not require that a specific victim be named in a statute, indictment, or verdict form”); (recognizing that “the charging document shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at any court proceeding” (quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
848 7Humelhans’ counsel filed a motion for release of the grand jury transcript, which was granted on May 10, 2012.
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
“[P]reclusion is rarely an 9 State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo Opinion of the Court appropriate sanction for a discovery violation,” and should be invoked only when less stringent sanctions would not achieve the ends of justice.
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(jury instruction served to effectively amend indictment); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 4 , (citation omitted)
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Meza 50 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Valencia 924 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
646, 654-56 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)
State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Killean 907 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
and determined that Arizona courts reviewing the preclusion of a criminal defendant’s evidence should continue to use the four-part test enumerated by the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. (Joe U.) Smith
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995