DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tinajero, 935 P.2d 928.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Hopkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Hopkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Hopkins substantially delayed his attempt to locate the pickup truck, waiting until eight months after the accident; (2) no evidence suggested bad intent by the State in failing to preserve the pickup truck; and (3) no evidence suggested the pickup truck could provide “potentially helpful evidence.” When defense counsel urged the court to reconsider its ruling, and stated there was no basis to find that the pickup truck may have contained exculpatory evidence.
  • State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    t’s use of a defendant’s decision not to admit guilt to aggravate a sentence “offends the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Id.; see also Trujillo, 227 Ariz. at 318, ¶ 15, 257 P.3d at 1198 (“[W]e conclude that in considering [the defendant’s] lack of remorse and his failure to admit guilt, the trial court deprived him of a right essential to his defense.”); (remanding because trial court considered lack of remorse as aggravator), ¶ 10
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    different line of argument, the state points to case law from Division One of this court which states that for a Willits instruction to be warranted, “evidence must possess exculpatory value that is apparent before it is destroyed.” accord State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 551
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    at 475-76, ¶ 12, ¶ 16 , 974 P.2d at 454 -55 ( , ).
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    § 28-661 is a “geographical” offense, 200 Ariz. at 125, ¶ 6, at 670 ( , disapproved of on other grounds by Powers II, 200 Ariz. at 364, ¶ 10, 26 P.3d at 1135 ), that can give rise to only one charge of leaving the scene.
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Even if we assume arguendo that Long is correct, however, “[w]here the degree of the defendant’s misconduct rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime, the trial court may consider such conduct as an aggravating factor.” Id.
  • State v. Powers 26 P.3d 1134 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Powers 26 P.3d 1134 Ariz. 2001
    ¶ 4 Powers appealed, , provides the appropriate analysis of A.R.S.
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    ¶ 6 , to support his claim that only one accident occurred, involving two victims.
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
    But flight was an element of one of the substantive crimes and is not a factor in aggravation....” Harrison, 195 Ariz. at 36 , 985 P.2d at 520 ; , (element of crime cannot be used as § 13-702 sentencing factor unless under facts of case it “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime”).
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Flight, therefore, could not support *36 a finding of aggravation unless the court found it “rises to a level beyond that which is merely necessary to establish an element of the underlying crime.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (defendant’s evasion of police went beyond mere commission of crime of leaving scene of an accident, which requires only a failure to remain at scene and display license, and was properly used to aggravate sentence under broad language of subsection)