Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Palenkas, 933 P.2d 1269.

30 citing documents.

In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Ms 2022-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628 (1993) (use of defendant’s invocation at the later criminal trial violates the due process clause).
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, e.g., Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976)
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
n. 7 (App. 1996) (“We overturn convictions for prejudicial error, not to punish prosecutors for improper comments.”).
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
This court has “previously disapproved the practice of holding unrecorded bench conferences on trial motions.” n.4 (App. 1996) (refusing to fault defense counsel for the lack of a record because the superior court’s actions prevented a contemporaneous record); (remanding a robbery case for a new trial when no transcript of the trial was available “through no fault of th
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 16 (App. 2012); –12 (App. 1996).
State v. De Luna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
214 (App. 1996) (finding reversible error where prosecutor presented evidence showing defendant invoked Fourth Amendment right by refusing detectives’ request to inspect his vehicle); -16, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2013) (clarifying Palenkas’s holding).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
411, 417, ¶ 16 (App. 2012) (holding it was error to permit “the State to introduce as direct evidence of guilt that [the defendant] invoked her Fourth Amendment rights and then argue she did so because she knew police would find illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia inside her house” in a case involving defendant’s refusal to allow a warrantless search of her home); (finding violation of due process rights to a fair trial in a case involving defendant’s refusal to consent to a warrantless search
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-13 (App. 1996) (“Error is ‘harmless’ when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”).
State v. Wagner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wagner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 Although the state may not comment on a defendant’s refusal to consent to a search as substantively evidencing guilt, as amended (Dec.
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Stevens 267 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 1 , that a prosecutor erred by introducing evidence that a defendant had refused a police request to voluntarily submit to a search.
State v. Sweeney 227 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Sweeney 227 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“[W]e believe that a defendant’s invocation of constitutional rights is probative of no thing except the defendant’s awareness of his or her constitutional rights.”).
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State Ex Rel. Verburg v. Jones 121 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Accordingly, Wooten’s , is misplaced.