Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nieto, 924 P.2d 453.

25 citing documents.

State v. McQueen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gayles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 24 (2012); Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 174; -43 (1989); (“The general rule is that negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense of manslaughter and the only difference between the offenses is an accused’s mental state at the time of the incident.”).
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem Smith 475 P.3d 558 Ariz. 2020
P. 19.1 cmt; (finding no error or prejudice where the court gave final jury instructions before closing arguments under Rule 19.1).
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“To determine if a statement is truly against interest requires a fact-intensive inquiry of the surrounding circumstances[,] and each declaration must be scrutinized to determine if it is self-inculpatory in light of the totality of circumstances.”
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” However, this right of confrontation “is not absolute and must sometimes give way to considerations of public policy.” , (-40 , -53 (App.1992)).
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
State v. Valenzuela 984 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1999
§§ 13-105.9.C, 13-1103.A.1
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
(“To determine if a statement is truly against interest requires a fact-intensive inquiry of the surrounding circumstances and each declaration must be scrutinized to determine if it is self-inculpatory in light of the totality of circumstances.”).