Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hardy, 491 P.2d 17.

32 citing documents.

In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
In Re Andre M. 88 P.3d 552 Ariz. 2004
We previously have noted that “[t]he presence of the child’s parents or their consent to a waiver of rights is only one of the elements to be considered by the trial court in determining that the statement was voluntary and the child intelligently comprehended his rights.” see also State v. Huerstel, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 52, (“[T]he absence of a parent during the questioning of a juvenile does not itself render a confession involuntary, rather it is considered as a factor in the totality of the
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
State v. Scholtz 791 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Scholtz 791 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juv.
State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Crivellone 675 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1983
State v. Crivellone 675 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1983
State v. Berlat 666 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Berlat 666 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In 1970, with the adoption of the rules of procedure, the legislature repealed the statutes interpreted in Shaw and Maloney and the first case thereafter to deal with inculpatory statements, , held that Rule 18 would set the standard for the admission of a statement of a child, overruling anything to the contrary in Maloney .
In re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-677 657 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
In re the Appeal in Pinal County, Juvenile Action No. J-677 657 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Jackson 576 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jackson 576 P.2d 129 Ariz. 1978
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-37390-1 570 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-37390-1 570 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Rodriquez 555 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1976
State v. Rodriquez 555 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1976
State v. Mattox 550 P.2d 630 Ariz. 1976
Overruled State v. Mattox 550 P.2d 630 Ariz. 1976
To the extent that this position deviates from State v. Maloney, [ , ], supra, that decision is overruled.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-47735-1 546 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-47735-1 546 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Rule 18 is not to be rigidly applied but rather all the circumstances of the taking of the statement should be viewed to determine if the rule has been followed.
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
State v. Taylor 537 P.2d 938 Ariz. 1975
The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of a , and held that in determining the voluntariness of.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action J-72773S 527 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action J-72773S 527 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The extra-judicial admissions of minors have been the subject of three Arizona Supreme Court decisions:
State v. Loyd 212 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1973
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973