Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Acinelli, 952 P.2d 304.

25 citing documents.

State v. Sicari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
reversal for a new trial.”
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(holding that speculation that officers’ personnel files may contain exculpatory information does not impose disclosure duty on the State); see also State v. Elliott, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0544 PRPC, 2018 WL 1124234 at *2, ¶ 9, n. 1 (Ariz. App. Mar.
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To prevail on a violation of Brady, Irvin must establish that the personnel records contain material evidence and he is not merely on a “blind fishing expedition.” see also State v. 3
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
–70 (App. 1997) (concluding the defendant was free to leave after the officer returned his documents and explained the issued citations were warnings, and therefore the officer’s continued “dialogue with the defendant” was lawful and the defendant’s consent to a search of his vehicle was valid).
State v. Uptain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Uptain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(quoting U.S. v. Navarro, 737 F.2d 625, 631 (7th.
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
6 U.S. 210, 216 (1984) (“[P]olice questioning, by itself, is unlikely to result in a Fourth Amendment violation.”); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 35-36 (1996) (officer conducting traffic stop may ask driver questions and seek permission to search); ¶ 23, (officer may ask questions unrelated to traffic stop); (search is not inherently non-consensual simply because officer asks permission to conduct it).
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Carrasco 49 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Carrasco 49 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Schinzel 45 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 12 We review the trial court’s ruling for a clear abuse of discretion, , considering only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 12 We review that ruling for a clear abuse of discretion, , and will reverse “only for clear and manifest error ...
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999