Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., 648 P.2d 122.

79 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶36 Stempel correctly asserts that “a DUI suspect has a due process right to gather independent evidence of sobriety while it still exists.” ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (citing cases); n.2 (1982).
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Accordingly, when police conduct infringes on an accused’s right to counsel and ability “to gather evidence exculpating him on the issue of intoxication,” “[d]ismissal of the case with prejudice is the appropriate remedy.”
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Unreasonable interference occurs when police deny a suspect access to counsel, unreasonably deny a suspect bail release, State v. Ganske, 6 STATE v. WILSON Decision of the Court -17 (App. 1977) (holding that interference with Ganske’s right to obtain independent evidenc
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
the state may continue with its detention procedures.” n.2, n.2 (1982).
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And although the State may not unreasonably interfere with a defendant’s efforts to obtain an independent sample, see Ramos, 155 Ariz. at 156, 745 P.2d at 604, Kuzmanov does not argue that law enforcement did so here, see, -11, -26 (1982) (affirming finding of unreasonable interference with defendant’s attempt to gather exculpatory evidence where police did not honor defendant’s request to telephone his attorney)
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, -28, -83 (App. 1984) (officer volunteered to transport defendant to hospital but delayed trip by two hours); McNutt v. Superior Court (Strick), (police refused to honor request to telephone attorney).
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(dismissal); Juarez, 161 Ariz. at 81, 775 P.2d at 1145 (suppression); Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 570, 744 P.2d at 671 (suppression).
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
discuss the right to counsel as a Sixth Amendment right even at the investigatory stage, 3 here the police indisputably met their obligations regarding the DUI suspect’s right to counsel as proscribed in those eases.
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
This court has also stated that “[i]f the defendant is indigent and cannot afford an attorney, the state need not wait until one is appointed before continuing its detention procedures.” , 10 n. 2, , 125 n. 2 (1982).
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Court, , (jail officials refused to honor request to telephone attorney); , (officer voluntarily undertook transport to hospital but then delayed trip by two hours); Smith v. *390 Ganske, , (jail officials told defe
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
10 n. 2, , 125 n.2 (1982).
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
State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
*485 , -10 , -25 (1982).
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Nonetheless, , , the court dismissed both counts with prejudice, ruling that dismissal, and not suppression of the breath test, was the remedy for the violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
without justification, prevent access between a defendant and his lawyer, if available, in person or by telephone, when such access would not unduly delay the DWI investigation and arrest.”
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. 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 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 gave defendants a choice between taking replicate breath tests, where they were advised that no Baca samples of their breath would be saved, and a single blood test, where defendants were advised that a sample of blood would be preserved for later testing by all parties, , , , , were satisfied.
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 evi
Theel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 447 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
4) In DWI investigations “it is crucial for both the state and the defendant to gather evidence relevant to intoxication close in time to when the defendant allegedly committed the crime.” Id., , 10 n. 2, , 125 n. 2 (1982).
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
McNutt [v. Superior Court, , ]; [State v.] Holland, , .
State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988