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. Valencia, 924 P.2d 497.

283 citing documents.

  • State v. Minjarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Minjarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Minjarez’s wallet contained another small plastic bag imprinted with a picture of “an old style cartoon bong, with a fuse on it, and then a repeating 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Tonyan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hannah 355 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ().
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.”
  • State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    2“We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions, with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2, ( ).
  • State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    1354 )); , 380 n. 5, ¶ 37, , 319 n. 5 (App. 2006) (noting that courts recognize the forfeiture by wrongdoing analysis); , (declaring defendant cannot assert Confrontation Clause and hearsay protections if waived by misconduct such as violence).
  • State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    493, 498, and wiH affirm the ruling on any ground supported by the record.
  • State v. King 132 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. King 132 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Bronson 63 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Rule 806 “specifically permits impeachment of a hearsay statement made by an absent declarant by any means which would have been permissible had the declarant been present and testified.”
  • Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    1406 , 131 L.Ed.2d 293 (1995)