Cited by

Evidence is “clearly exculpatory” if it “would deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause.” Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 631 (); Willis, 253 Ariz. at 462 ¶ 32

State v. Superior Court (Mauro)

§ 1-246 (“[O]ffender[s] shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed.”); (“Unless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.”); (applying statute “in effect at the time” the crime was committed).

We also affirm that evidence is clearly exculpatory if it would deter a grand jury from finding probable cause to issue an indictment as initially stated in State v. Superior Court (Mauro)

Superior Court, Div. II, (“Unless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.”).

the grand jury of the existence of clearly exculpatory evidence, Trebus, 189 Ariz. at 625, which is 7 HANSEN v. CHON-LOPEZ Opinion of the Court evidence that “would deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause,” Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 631 (quoting State v. Superior Court (Mauro), ).

See State v. Superior Court (Mauro), ("Unless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.").

Superior Court, , , 1388 (1984).

of Maricopa, -75, ¶ 31, -25 (2004) (Hurwitz, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing State v. Superior Court (Mauro), ); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-413 (requiring indictment be based upon probable cause); Ariz. R. Crim.

“Clearly exculpatory evidence is evidence of such weight that it would deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause.” State v. Superior Court (Mauro)

Superior Court (Mauro), P.2d 1386 (1984) (recognizing a defendant’s citation to persuasive federal authorities); -72, ¶ 24, -59 (App. 2007) (recognizing that interpretations of federal statutes by federal courts are persuasive authority when Arizona courts interpret similar state statu

Trebus, 189 Ariz. at 626 , 944 P.2d at 1240 (quoting State v. Superior Court (Mauro), , , 1388 (1984)).

(quoting State v. Coconino County Superior Court (Mauro), , , 1389 (1984)).

See Garcia, , 151 P.3d at 537 (“ § 1-244 plainly requires an express declaration from the legislature before a law can apply retroactively”); see also State v. Coconino County Superior Court (Mauro), , , 1391 (1984) (statutory changes to Arizona’s insanity defense, A.R.S.

State v. Coconino County Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 422

As we held in State v. Coconino County Superior Court (Mauro): “Unless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.”

1391 (1984) (avoiding ex post facto analysis and deciding question about retroactivity of statute under § 1-244 as independent state law ground); , 189 n. 1, 726 * n. 1 (App.1986), aff'd, , (unnecessary to address

(avoiding ex post facto analysis and deciding question about retroactivity of statute under § 1-244 as independent state law ground); n.1, n.1 (App. 1986), aff’d, P.2d 608 (1986) (unnecessary to address consti

Under § 1-244, “[ujnless a statute is expressly declared to be retroactive, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.” , , 1391 (1984).

§ 1-244 (1995) (“No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”); , *409 (“Unless a statute provides otherwise, ‘it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.’ ”) ( , , 1391 (1984)).

State v. Coconino County Superior Court (Mauro), , ,1389 (1984).

“Clearly exculpatory evidence is evidence of such weight that it would deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause.” State v. Superior Court (Mauro), , , 1389 (1984).