Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Grounds, 623 P.2d 803.

30 citing documents.

Aguiniga v. Aguiniga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aguiniga v. Aguiniga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bank of Yuma v. Arrow Constr.
State v. Berhane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Berhane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶13 The superior court acted within its discretion by denying Berhane’s motion because Berhane did not “establish that the informant could testify on the merits of the case.”
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
(explaining that because the record was “devoid of evidence,” there was nothing upon which the trial court could base its ruling).
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The State moved for reconsideration, arguing (1) it did not plan to call the CI as a witness or disclose anything related to the CI, (2) it could withhold the information under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.4(b), and (3) Appellant had not meet his burden of showing the CI was a P.2d 803 (1981).
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., (“Allegations in pleadings are not evidence”); (stating that evidence consists of “sworn affidavits, stipulated facts, depositions, and oral testimony”).
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 STATE v. CANALES Decision of the Court exoneration and that nondisclosure of his identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” ( ¶¶ 17-18, )
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Although arguments of counsel are not evidence, in this case they provide further context for understanding Fimbres’s own testimony.
State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. GONZALES-PEREZ 62 P.3d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(reversing trial court's disclosure ruling not supported by evidence at hearing); cf. State ex rel.
Mendez v. Robertson 42 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mendez v. Robertson 42 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Specifically, , which involved a suppression hearing, , which dealt with a discovery dispute and the defendant’s request for the identity of a confidential informant; both types of proceedings are governed by different rules of procedure.
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Robles 895 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Fimbres 733 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Riddel 651 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1982
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Riddel 651 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1982