DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baca v. Smith, 604 P.2d 617.

74 citing documents.

  • State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    To enable a suspect to do so, a line of cases has progressed, as the breath-testing technology has advanced, from requiring the state to preserve the breath ampoule it tests, , to requiring it to take and preserve a second sample when the test sam- *546 pie is destroyed in the testing process, , to requiring that the second sample be “reasonably reliable,” , to holding that offering a suspect a choice between a duplicate breath test with no sample preserved and a blood test with a preserved samp
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    our supreme court held that due process required the state, when requested, to preserve a second breath sample for the defendant’s own testing, or to demonstrate that the defendant waived the taking and preservation of a second sample.
  • State v. Duber 930 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Duber 930 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    In Harrison , the defendants in two separate DUI cases had requested that a
  • State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Bolan 927 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    ■ Although prior cases had recognized a due process right to breath *162 samples, , the technological sophistication of the Intoxilyzer 5000 altered our conclusion about the demands of due process.
  • State v. Moore 901 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Moore 901 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    He contends that Officer Hancock improperly failed to provide him a second sample of Ms breath for independent testing wMch he requested and was entitled to as a matter of due process
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Johnson 891 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Johnson 891 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (“when requested, the police must take and preserve a separate [breath] sample for the suspect by means of a field collection unit”).
  • Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Moss v. Superior Court 857 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    97 (1979); , , State ex rel.
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Arizona cases have consistently held that a DUI defendant is entitled to a breath sample so that he may have the opportunity to challenge the state’s test results by having the sample independently tested and by introducing the independent test results into evidence if they are more fa
  • State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Kemp 813 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1991
    We ordered supplemental briefing on whether a , and its progeny need not be applied in blood testing cases.
  • Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa 799 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    the supreme court set forth a new requirement regarding the preservation of a suspect’s breath sample.
  • State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Velasco 799 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 789 P.2d 180 Ariz. 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court 788 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    the court gave the key to the decision in this case: An essential lesson to be drawn from McNutt [v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, , ], Scales [v. City Court of City of Mesa, , ], and Baca [v. Smith, , ] is that a defendant must be allowed to counter the state’s scientific evidence of intoxication, or evidence of refusal, with the defendant’s own scientific evidence.
  • State v. Goodwin 773 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Goodwin 773 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Havatone 769 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Similarly, , the court held that a defendant must be provided with a second breath sample which he may have independently analyzed in order to contest the test results.
  • State v. Harrison 755 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Harrison 755 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    the Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant who is given a breath test by the state must be provided with a second sample of his breath if he requests one.
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Corcoran 735 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1987