Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
As we noted in McNutt [vs. Superior Court ] supra, 133 Ariz. [7] at 10 n. 2, [ (1982) ] “a defendant has no right to delay by demanding to consult with counsel before being required to choose a blood alcohol test or possible driver’s license suspension as provided for in A.R.S.
Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
At the hearing on the motions, defendant stated that he was confused when police told him that “I was entitled to a lawyer and then he turns around and reads me another deal that said that I’m not entitled to an attorney.” , , was applicable to the instant situation.
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
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. Warner 722 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1986
State v. Warner 722 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1986
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
See, , (dismissal of DWI case with prejudice appropriate where state prevented defendant from obtaining independent blood test); , (right to obtain independent test based upon constitutional principles).
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1985
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1985
Rule 6.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S..
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Holland 711 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
is controlling under these facts.
Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
Amos v. Bowen 693 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Amos v. Bowen 693 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
notes that constitutional standards afford a DWI suspect the right to obtain an independent blood test.
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
decided in the interim between McLoughlin I and appellant's second trial and in light of the facts and evidence presented at his first trial which, he claims, this Court failed to recognize as indicated by its reliance on Nelson, supra, in deciding McLoughlin I. [2] We disagree and hold that McL
Gaunt v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Transp. 666 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gaunt v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Transp. 666 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
125 n. 2 (1982), the supreme court held that the defendant did not have the right to delay the taking of the test by demanding to consult with counsel.