DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kananen, 399 P.2d 426.

43 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
    The comment to the rule indicates that Rule 16.1(c) overruled State v. Kananen , , which held that "a defendant was not precluded by his failure to make a pretrial suppression motion from objecting to the admission of illegally-obtained evidence at trial."
  • State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In support of this argument
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
    In State v. Cañez, this Court mistakenly stated that the state must prove voluntary consent "by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent.” , 151 ¶ 53, , 582 (2002) ( , ).
  • State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    4 ¶ 53 , , (“In determining whether or not there was a consent, it is necessary that such a waiver or consent be proved by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent, and it must be established that there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied.”).
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    “In determining whether or not there was a consent, it is necessary that such a waiver or consent be proved by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent____”
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Lucero 692 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lucero 692 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    “[T]he comments to Rule 16 , in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant was not precluded by his failure to make a pretrial suppression motion from objecting to the admission of illegally obtained evidence at trial.
  • State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Brown v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CTY. OF MARICOPA 580 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1978
  • Brown v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CTY. OF MARICOPA 580 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1978
    we held: “In determining whether or not there was a consent, it is necessary that such a waiver or consent be proved by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent, and it must be established that there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied.” H
  • State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
    We have said that: “In determining whether or not there was a consent, it is necessary that such a waiver or consent be proved by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent, and it must be established that there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Lee 542 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    Second, the comments to Rule 16 P.2d 426 (1965), in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant was not precluded by his failure to make a pretrial suppression motion from objecting to the admission of illegally obtained evidence at trial.
  • State v. Patricella 510 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Patricella 510 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1973
    we indicated that the State must prove consent by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent.
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    1938, 16 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1966)
  • State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Wilson 477 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1970
    in which objection has been made to the introduction of evidence on the ground that it had been obtained through illegal search and seizure, we pointed out that the courts were divided on the question of whether the evidence would be excluded on the objection during the trial on the grounds that it wa
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Wilson 439 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Stokes 410 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Stokes 410 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    the Arizona Supreme Court quoted a New Jersey case with approval.
  • State v. Lopez 405 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Lopez 405 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
    Therefore, I can’t see any reason why *13 the motion should be granted for suppressing the evidence, so motion to suppress evidence is denied.” The law in regard to a , , where we held: “In determining whether or not there was a consent, it is necessary that such a waiver or consent be proved by clear and positive evidence in unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent, and it must be established that there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied.
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Graham 401 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Graham 401 P.2d 141 Ariz. 1965
    Recently in State v. Kananen, Ariz., this Court stated that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court must be followed in regard to admissibility of evidence involving such a federal question as the obtaining of evidence in violation of rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.