Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pecard, 998 P.2d 453.

29 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 42 (App. 1999) (referring to “the drastic remedy of dismissal”).
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 24 (App. 1999), deferring to 8 STATE v. TERMINI Decision of the Court the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, see, (holding that “a trial
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
Christopher Matthew Clements v. Hon. bernini/state 471 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2020
See Moody, 208 Ariz. at 448–49 ¶¶ 76, 80; Warner, 150 Ariz. at 127; ¶ 32 (App. 1999).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13–3553, is unconstitutionally overbroad.3 We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 24 (App. 1999), but review de novo whether a law is unconstitutionally overbroad, ¶ 4 (App. 2011).
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 In determining whether dismissing an indictment is the appropriate remedy for the State’s violation of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel, a trial court weighs the defendant’s constitutional rights against “society’s interest in the administration of criminal justice.” ¶ 38, (quoting United States v. Morrision, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981)).
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Alyssa Marie Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Courts narrowly tailor remedies for a violation of the right to counsel to avoid unnecessarily infringing on “society’s interest in the administration of criminal justice.” ¶ 38 , (quoting United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
Whether a Sixth Amendment violation exists depends on whether the intrusions were purposeful and whether the prosecution, either directly or indirectly, obtained evidence or learned of defense strategy from the intrusions.” ¶ 28, (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558 (1977)).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
¶ 80 Although eavesdropping on privileged calls and opening privileged materials intrude into the attorney-client relationship, -78, ¶¶ 26-37 , -60 (App.1999) *449 (finding an intrusion into the attorney-client relationship where defendant’s telephone calls with his attorney were recorded, his privileged mail to and from his attorney was opened, and privileged work product documents were taken from his cell), the facts in
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
“The decision whether to grant a motion to dismiss is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000